Chemical dependence is a necessary but insufficient precondition for addiction. Addiction is a biopsychosocial disorder & one needs a particular constellation of biological, psychological, & sociological symptoms or risk factors to be diagnosed.

Anyone who says that addiction is purely biological, or purely psychological is missing part of the puzzle.

Being chemically dependent on something doesn't necessarily mean you're addicted to it.

Take the example I wrote about elsewhere in this thread. I am chemically dependent on my antidepressants. Meaning, if I stopped taking them, I would experience deleterious physical symptoms. However, I am not "addicted" to these medications as such, because, for one, I am not abusing them [I take them as prescribed], & taking these medications does not impact my ability to live my life or meet social or familial obligations, &c.

So, chemical dependence needs to be present to diagnose a substance use disorder, but chemical dependence on its own is insufficient in terms of meeting the criteria of substance use disorder.

Addiction & substance use disorder are different, too. Eating disorders are process/behavioral addictions, but not substance use disorders as there is no, well, substance involved per se.