I've visited this subject before, but not only is it important, and not only is the deadline approaching, but this post has a slightly different target. In the past, I've written about binge-eating disorder, which has been proposed as an addition to the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the manual of the American Psychiatric Association. To now, anorexia, bulimia, and "not otherwise specified" have been the only eating disorders in the DSM.

While the addition of binge-eating disorder would be an advance, the APA is still nibbling around the edges: Acknowledgement of food addiction is still missing, even though thousands of people who have self-identified as food addicts have gotten better by following the practices and treatments that have proven effective for "real" addicts since the '30s.

Additionally, and what should be of more interest to the professionals leading this effort, there is plenty of science to support the contention. The Scripps study that got so much ink last week is just the latest expression.  Honestly, I cannot fathom why these folks are so hard to impress.

Why is it important? If the APA doesn't recognize it, it doesn't exist in officialdom. Insurers aren't going to cover treatment for something that isn't there. Its prevalence can't be quantified, because commons standards can't be established.

As I was before, I'm following Phil Werdell's leadership in this effort — he's been seeking to provoke comments to the panel steadily for several months. The comment period closes on April 20.

To leave your comment, go here, though you'll have to submit to establishing name and password before you can write. Click on "other."