Are We Willing To Follow It?
In human nutrition, we are increasingly aware of the health effects of ultra-processed foods in our diet. A growing body of research has linked high consumption of ultra-processed foods with obesity, type 2 diabetes, IBD, neurological disorders, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic health conditions. These health conditions are mirrored in our horses, and yet, our concerns disappear in the distance between our house and the barn - as if that science does not apply to other species receiving the same types of foods.
In the equine world, feeds are discussed as though their nutritional value can be fully understood by reading the guaranteed analysis. If the protein, fat, fiber, minerals, starch, and sugar “balance,” the conversation can end.
This is where one of the most familiar phrases in equine nutrition becomes interesting: “Show me the science.” On its face, there is nothing wrong with that request. We should want evidence and question claims. We should understand how conclusions were reached and distinguish between observation, hypothesis, and well-supported scientific knowledge. The problem is that this is not always how the phrase is used.
Too often, “show me the science” is not delivered as an invitation to examine evidence, but as a way to cancel a conversation. It becomes shorthand for “That is not what I was taught,” “That is not what my accepted experts say,” or even “Prove that the framework I believe is wrong.” When used that way, it is not scientific curiosity. It is the protection of an existing belief system that is masquerading as the language of science.
Scientific scrutiny should not apply only to new ideas. It should also apply to the assumptions we have inherited. If we demand evidence before questioning a conventional feeding practice, we should be equally willing to ask what evidence established that practice in the first place. Are we examining the feeding system itself, or are we simply refining formulations within a system we have already decided is correct? How was this system developed? By whom? What was the motivation behind the inquiry?
When the same nutritional framework is taught for decades by universities, veterinarians, nutritionists, feed companies, trainers, and respected horse people, a feedback loop may develop in which commercial success influences which research receives support. Research helps shape what is taught; what is taught shapes professional recommendations; and those recommendations reinforce the marketplace that helped support the research. This makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish between a conclusion that has been repeatedly challenged and independently validated and one that has simply become deeply embedded in professional culture. History offers important examples of how powerful this kind of reinforcement can become. The tobacco industry, for example, did not rely solely on disputing individual studies; for decades it helped cultivate a broader framework of beliefs, uncertainty, and professional messaging that delayed public and regulatory scrutiny of smoking-related harms. The lesson is not that equine nutrition is analogous to tobacco, but that repetition, institutional authority, and commercial reinforcement can give an idea the appearance of settled truth long before its underlying assumptions have been adequately, independently challenged.
The Economics Of Horse Feed
Animal feed has long provided an economically useful outlet for by-products and materials left over from other industries. Converting those materials into feed reduces or eliminates disposal costs while turning them into products with economic value. That may be environmentally and commercially useful and nutritionally acceptable, but regulatory acceptance and optimal nutrition are not necessarily the same thing.
Animal feeds are subject to safety requirements. Potentially harmful substances may be prohibited or limited according to applicable standards. Food-producing animals carry added concerns because regulators must consider whether what those animals consume could leave unsafe residues in meat, milk, or eggs entering the human food supply, but horses and companion animals do not occupy that same regulatory space. An allowable limit answers a safety and regulatory question; it does not necessarily tell us whether repeated exposure over time represents the best possible foundation for long-term health.
Likewise, the fact that a by-product contains useful nutrients does not tell us why it entered the feeding system. Recognizing that history does not mean that commercial feeds are inherently unsafe. It means we should be willing to distinguish among what is legally permitted, what can provide useful nutrition, and what represents the best choice for lifelong nourishment.
What Happens When New Science Challenges Old Beliefs?
Researchers at the University of Minnesota, funded by the Morris Animal Foundation, examined more than 300 horses for exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and found associations between those exposures and metabolic abnormalities associated with equine metabolic syndrome. The research suggests that environmental chemical exposure might help explain some of the variation in EMS that could not be accounted for by commonly considered factors such as diet, exercise, and season. The researchers also noted that food may represent one route of exposure.
A finding like that should expand the framework and lead us to ask how equine foods are grown, processed, manufactured, stored, and packaged; what substances may be introduced along the way; and what occurs when horses are repeatedly exposed to those foods over time.
We should want evidence, question claims, and understand how conclusions were reached. We live at a time when much of “the science” is readily available to anyone willing to look for it. A simple search can lead to published studies, review papers, university research and decades of scientific literature. Genuine intellectual curiosity rarely begins and ends by demanding that someone else produce the evidence; it usually creates the desire to go looking for it.
That is why the way “show me the science” is used deserves scrutiny. The phrase implies curiosity, yet in practice it is frequently delivered by someone who has made little effort to examine the available evidence and has little interest in doing so. Rather than opening a conversation, it becomes a way to close one. It is the protection of an existing belief system masquerading as scientific inquiry.
The Human Need To Belong
People value belonging. We trust people and institutions that our professional and social groups have identified as authorities. There is comfort in understanding the accepted framework, knowing the expected answer, and receiving validation from others, especially when that person is an instructor or recognized expert. But access to information is not the same thing as knowledge, and the ability to repeat information does not create expertise. Real expertise should be demonstrated by the ability to reason, question, integrate new evidence, and revise an interpretation when new information becomes available. Assumptions that were previously accepted may require reconsideration when new evidence challenges them.
This is not science failing. This is science evolving.
The lifelong process of learning requires us to tolerate the discomfort of discovering that something we believed with great confidence may have been inaccurate or incomplete. If expertise becomes an identity or a title that must be defended, it becomes much harder to ask difficult questions at the heart of genuine scientific inquiry.
The Discomfort Of Not Knowing
“Show me the science” is an excellent standard, provided we are willing to apply it consistently. Show me the science behind the new idea, certainly, but show me the science behind the old assumption as well. Show me which assumptions we have continued to test and which ones we have simply continued to teach.
Science does not require certainty where certainty does not exist, nor does it require us to defend everything we have always believed. It requires us to challenge assumptions we have continued to teach, recognize when evidence complicates them, and remain curious enough to follow that evidence wherever it leads.
