Robert G. Gish

Polarizing opinions have recently arisen in hepatology on the name and redefinition of fatty liver disease associated with metabolic dysfunction. In spite of growing and robust evidence of the superior utility of the term metabolic (dysfunction) associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) definition for clinical and academic practice, controversy abounds. It should therefore come, as no surprise that the most common arguments used in contrarian op‐eds is that there are no consensus on any name change. In this context, we suggest that discourse on an accurate understanding of what scientific consensus means, the various methods of achieving consensus, as well as other alternative models for reaching agreement is pivotal for the field. In this opinion piece, we provide an overview of these aspects as it applies to the case of fatty liver disease. We provide evidence that consensus on a change from non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to MAFLD has already been achieved. We believe that the time has come for redirecting stakeholder focus and energy on capitalizing on the momentum generated by the debate to improve the lives of people at its centre, our patients.