I don't know why they even bother to debate whether there can be something in food that makes it addictive (although I think there is). There are addictions like gambling for example in which no substance is even consumed into the body but which no one argues are not true addictions because you didn't eat/snort/shoot some substance. If a person's behavior around a food substance is out of control and addictive in nature, it's an addiction. Period. If they can isolate a physically consumed substance in the eaten item that is driving the addiction, that could be helpful to let addicted people know what they need to avoid (like alcoholics not drinking), but lack of knowledge or understanding as to what specific substances in some food may drive an addiction do not make the addiction itself any less real. So they need to stop debating IMO over whether it's even possible to have a food-related addiction when people clearly do. And yes, I think the addictive part is the carbs.