A Former Tyson Executive Now Oversees the Safety of the U.S. Meat Supply
goodmenproject.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 9:52:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Presidential Campaigns, Media Coverage & Press Relations, White House Policy Proposals
Justin Ransom helped launch Tyson's controversial label for "climate friendly" beef. Now he leads the federal agency charged with meat label oversight.
On July 3rd, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced a new round of political appointments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Among them, Justin Ransom was named the administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the agency charged with overseeing the safety of the U.S. meat and poultry supply. Up until his appointment, Ransom held a senior leadership role at Tyson, where he played a key part in launching the company's highly contested "climate-friendly" beef brand called Brazen Beef, a brand that has been pulled from the shelves and accused of misleading consumers with its empty climate claims.
While an executive branch appointee is permitted to work for an agency that regulates a former employer, Kedric Payne, who leads the ethics program at the Campaign Legal Center, tells Sentient, "there is a potential for ethics violations if the official does not recuse from decisions that could be conflict of interest with Tyson."
Part of Ransom's role at FSIS involves overseeing claims on food labels, including those related to climate, human health and animal welfare. Whenever Tyson, the largest meat producer in the U.S., releases a new product or modifies its packaging, it must obtain FSIS's approval for the label -- a requirement that could raise a conflict of interest.
Ransom also previously held top positions at McDonald's and OSI Group, a meat supplier that services many of the largest food brands that also fall under FSIS's purview. "The appointment of Justin Ransom, a food industry insider who has spent years trying to weaken food safety requirements on behalf of paying clients such as Tyson's, to head the food safety program at the Department of Agriculture poses a conflict of interest," Craig Holman, an expert in governmental ethics at Public Citizen, tells Sentient.
'A Fox Guarding the Hen House'
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is tasked with "protecting the public's health by ensuring the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products," according to the agency's website. This involves enforcing bedrock public health and consumer safety laws, including the 1906 Federal Meat Inspection Act that established sanitation standards for meatpacking facilities, mandating inspections of all meat sold in the United States. FSIS also has the unique authority of approval of all meat, poultry and egg product labels on the front and back of packages.
Carrie Apfel, the deputy managing attorney at the public interest law firm Earthjustice, expressed concern about the possibility of Tyson seeking approval from the FSIS for additional labels with unsubstantiated claims about its meat products.
"When you have an insider from the second largest meat company at the helm of that agency," she says, "it's a bit of a fox guarding the hen house situation."
In 2022, under Ransom's leadership, Tyson applied for a label on its Brazen Beef brand claiming that its production achieves a "10 percent greenhouse gas reduction," which FSIS quickly approved. The approval drew criticism from environmental groups that accused the federal agency of "rubberstamping" a misleading label. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) petitioned the USDA to prohibit this label, arguing that the claim about climate was not based on any third-party verified data and peddles false information to consumers.
One third of all greenhouse gas emissions are fueled by global food systems, and research shows beef is far worse for climate emissions than any other food, no matter how that beef is produced.
"There is no such thing as low-carbon beef. No food choice results in more greenhouse gas emissions than beef," stated EWG in its petition to the USDA. "However, many consumers viewing the Low-Carbon Beef label approved by USDA are likely to assume that beef bearing such a label will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
In September of 2024, EWG sued Tyson, alleging that the climate claims related to the Brazen Beef brand were misleading marketing. EWG is represented by Apfel at Earthjustice, among other lawyers, and the case is still pending. As part of the pre-trial discovery process, attorneys have a chance to ask for documents and question witnesses. Earthjustice plans to question Ransom under oath as "one of the witnesses who we intend to depose in our lawsuit," wrote Apfel in an email to Sentient. The lawsuit challenges both Tyson's claim of producing beef with lower emissions and working toward 'net zero emissions.'"
"It's just impossible for a meat company the size and scale of Tyson -- with the production the scale of Tyson -- to actually achieve the things that it says that it can achieve while making virtually no significant changes to its business model," says Apfel of Tyson's net zero targets. "Tyson never has and cannot possibly substantiate those claims."
Ransom's role at Tyson as the senior director for sustainable food strategy was often public-facing, helping to market Tyson's climate strategy. This included joining the podcast Marketing Talk to discuss the launch of the Brazen Beef program in 2023. "We believe agriculture and beef production specifically can be part of the climate solution, and it's really about how do we characterize it as such," Ransom said on the podcast. He described Brazen Beef's origins as "a bit of a leap of faith backed by data."
Tyson Under Investigation by the FSIS
The appointment of a former Tyson leader to the head of FSIS could pose broader conflicts of interest when it comes to regulating the U.S. meat supply in the public interest. As the largest meat company in the U.S., Tyson has frequently fallen under the agency's scrutiny. For instance, the agency has suspended some of Tyson's slaughterhouses for failing to meet the very minimal standards for reducing animal cruelty outlined in the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
As of late 2024, Tyson was under investigation by FSIS's Packers and Stockyard Division, the office responsible for protecting livestock and poultry producers from "unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practices." In December, Investigate Midwest found that there were 18,000 records pertaining to an active investigation into "the business practices of Tyson Foods and its contract growers," which the USDA didn't confirm.
FSIS didn't respond to Sentient's request to confirm whether this investigation remains ongoing, or requests about the conflicts of interests posed by Ransom's appointment. Ransom did not respond to a request for comment.
The Risk of Flaunting Conflict of Interest Rules
Ransom is the latest example of the Trump Administration's long pattern of political appointments with potential conflicts of interest and close industry ties across the executive branch. However, the practice of appointing USDA officials with industry ties is not unique to Trump or Republicans. Former President Biden's appointment of Tom Vilsack to USDA Secretary (a position he also held under former President Obama) drew significant criticism at the time, as Vilsack had led a dairy industry trade group for the four years following Obama's second term.
There are no ethics rules that explicitly restrict Ransom's appointment to the helm of an agency overseeing his recent employer, says Holman. "Trump explicitly repealed Biden's ethics executive order regulating conflicts of interest and replaced it with nothing." As a result, there are also "very little restrictions on what Justin Ransom can and cannot do under the conflict of interest code" in his new appointment.
In an email to Sentient, Anna Kelly, White House Deputy Press Secretary wrote that "Justin Ransom has two decades of experience in agriculture and food systems, and he is exceptionally qualified to lead FSIS. All administration officials abide by robust ethics requirements to avoid conflicts of interest."
"This administration is the first in well over a decade to abandon conflict of interest regulations in the appointment of senior administration officials," wrote Holman in an e-mail to Sentient. During Trump's first presidential term, the administration issued ethics rules during the first month, but was subsequently found to have violated its own rules in numerous political appointments, according to an annual report issued by the Office of Government Ethics.
There are federal laws governing conflicts of interests that could limit Ransom's direct involvement in matters regarding Tyson, notes Payne of the Campaign Legal Center. He points to 18 U.S. Code § 208, a federal law prohibiting executive branch employees from "participating personally and substantially in a particular Government matter that will affect his own, as well as the financial interests of certain individuals with whom he has ties outside the Government." Payne also pointed to the regulations requiring that executive branch employees seek approval for situations involving personal or business connections.
"To determine whether or not there is the need for recusal, there's a pre-approval process," says Payne, in which the agency ethics official should get "details from the official about the interactions with that former employer."
Payne is concerned, however, that these rules may not be enforced, citing a culture where those that try to enforce the rules may be fired. Payne points to the recent firing of Joseph Tirrell, the ethics chief at the Department of Justice, whose dismissal appears to be a retaliatory move. "In this situation," says Payne, "there may not be any guardrails to stop improper conduct."
This article originally appeared in Sentient at https://sentientmedia.org/former-tyson-executive-oversees-safety-of-us-meat-supply/.
--
This story was originally published by Sentient.
***
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.
Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent appointment of Justin Ransom, a former executive at Tyson Foods, to lead the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest and the integrity of food safety regulations in the United States. With Ransom’s background in the meat industry, particularly his role in launching Tyson’s controversial “climate-friendly” beef brand, the potential for ethical violations looms large. The appointment not only highlights systemic issues within the regulatory framework but also underlines the broader struggles for accountability and transparency in sectors that directly impact public health and environmental sustainability.
Historically, the FSIS has been a cornerstone of food safety standards in America, tracing its roots back to the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906. This act emerged in response to public health crises and the unsanitary conditions documented in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." The establishment of rigorous inspection protocols was a progressive victory for consumers and workers, reflecting a societal commitment to safety over corporate profit. However, Ransom's appointment signals a worrying regression; placing a former executive in charge of overseeing the very industry he once served undermines the principles of public welfare that these regulations were designed to uphold. This is reminiscent of the "revolving door" phenomenon in American politics, where individuals oscillate between roles in government and the private sector, often prioritizing corporate interests over public health.
The appointment raises critical questions about the efficacy of food labeling, particularly in light of growing consumer interest in sustainable and ethical food production. Ransom’s involvement with Tyson’s "climate-friendly" beef brand, which has faced scrutiny for its vague claims and lack of substantiation, exemplifies a trend where marketing gimmicks overshadow genuine environmental responsibility. As consumers become increasingly aware of the impact of livestock production on climate change, the integrity of claims made by meat producers becomes paramount. Unfortunately, with Ransom now overseeing the approval of such labels, there is a significant risk that misleading claims may proliferate, further confusing consumers who are striving to make informed choices.
The implications of this appointment extend beyond consumer protection; they touch on the broader social justice movements advocating for the rights of workers in the meatpacking industry. The conditions under which many workers endure grueling hours for meager pay in often hazardous environments are well-documented. By establishing a leader whose prior work was focused on undermining food safety standards for profit, the USDA sends a message that the well-being of workers is secondary to the interests of large corporations like Tyson. This stance is particularly troubling in light of ongoing labor struggles where workers are demanding better conditions, fair wages, and a voice in workplace safety—issues that Ransom may not prioritize given his corporate background.
Finally, the appointment of Justin Ransom serves as a wake-up call for advocates of progressive reform who must remain vigilant in their efforts to hold the government accountable. The situation emphasizes the need for a renewed commitment to democratic oversight of regulatory agencies. Grassroots movements and public interest groups must mobilize to advocate for transparent processes that safeguard public health and environmental integrity, ensuring that the voices of consumers, workers, and advocates are heard. Engaging in dialogue that connects these issues to historical and social justice contexts not only helps raise awareness but also galvanizes collective action aimed at creating a more equitable and sustainable food system. As this situation unfolds, it is crucial for individuals and organizations to call out conflicts of interest and advocate for robust regulatory practices that prioritize the health of the public and the planet over unchecked corporate power.
The recent appointment of Justin Ransom as the administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) underscores a troubling trend in U.S. governance: the revolving door between big corporations and regulatory agencies. Ransom, previously a key player at Tyson Foods, one of the largest meat producers in the country, now finds himself in a position to influence regulations that directly affect his former employer. This scenario is reminiscent of the phrase "a fox guarding the hen house," which accurately captures the potential conflicts of interest that could arise from his leadership. The implications of this appointment are extensive, as they not only raise questions about ethical governance but also about the broader impacts on food safety, public health, and consumer trust.
Historically, the FSIS has played a pivotal role in ensuring the safety of meat and poultry products since the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act in 1906. This act was a response to public outcry over unsanitary conditions in the meatpacking industry, famously documented in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." The establishment of safety standards was a significant step toward protecting consumers from harmful practices. However, the presence of a former Tyson executive at the helm of this agency raises concerns that the regulatory framework might be compromised, prioritizing corporate interests over public health. As Ransom oversees the labeling and safety standards for meat products, there is a genuine risk that the agency could become more lenient towards claims made by companies like Tyson, especially regarding their controversial “climate-friendly” beef, which critics have deemed misleading.
As engaged citizens, it is essential to recognize the importance of holding our government accountable, particularly when corporate influence threatens to undermine public welfare. Advocacy for stricter regulations regarding conflicts of interest is crucial. Organizations like Public Citizen and Earthjustice are already raising alarms about the implications of Ransom's appointment. Supporting these organizations through donations or volunteering can amplify their efforts to advocate for transparency and ethical governance. Furthermore, it is vital to engage in conversations with friends, family, and community members about the importance of food safety and ethical oversight in our government. By raising awareness around these topics, we can foster a more informed electorate that demands accountability from our leaders.
Additionally, consumers have the power to influence corporate behavior through their purchasing choices. By supporting businesses that prioritize ethical practices and sustainability, individuals can send a clear message to major corporations like Tyson that the public demands transparency and integrity. This includes buying from local farms, supporting sustainable meat alternatives, and advocating for clearer labeling on products. Grassroots movements can lead to real change in how corporations operate, and consumer demand can pressure companies to adopt more ethical practices. Engaging with local food networks and promoting plant-based diets can also contribute to reducing the demand for meat products that rely on potentially misleading labeling.
Finally, it is critical to encourage legislative reforms that address the conflicts inherent in such appointments. Advocating for stronger regulations that prevent individuals with close ties to industries from overseeing their own sectors can help restore public confidence in regulatory agencies. This might involve pushing for new laws that require transparent disclosure of past employment relationships for key appointments in government agencies. Engaging with community representatives and supporting political candidates who prioritize ethical governance can lead to significant reforms that protect public interest over corporate profit.
In conclusion, the appointment of Justin Ransom to oversee the FSIS presents a significant challenge to the integrity of food safety in the United States. As citizens, it is our responsibility to remain vigilant and proactive in ensuring that our regulatory agencies serve the public interest rather than succumbing to corporate pressures. By fostering a culture of accountability, making informed consumer choices, and advocating for legislative reform, we can create a more equitable and just food system that prioritizes the health and safety of all Americans.
The appointment of Justin Ransom as administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) raises significant concerns about the integrity of our meat supply oversight. Here are actionable steps we can take to address this situation:
### 1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - **Action**: Stay informed about conflicts of interest in government appointments and the implications for food safety. - **Example**: Share articles and information through social media platforms, community groups, or local events to raise awareness about food safety issues.
### 2. **Petition for Transparency and Accountability** - **Action**: Create or support petitions that call for stricter guidelines on conflict of interest for public officials in food safety positions. - **Example**: Use platforms like Change.org to draft a petition demanding FSIS to ensure that no individual with industry ties can oversee food safety regulations.
### 3. **Contact Elected Officials** - **Action**: Write to your local representatives expressing your concerns about Ransom’s appointment and the potential conflict of interest. - **Who to Contact**: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren** - Email: senator_warren@warren.senate.gov - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** - Email: aoc@mail.house.gov - Mailing Address: 144 E 26th St, New York, NY 10010 - **What to Say**: "I am writing to express my concern about the appointment of Justin Ransom as administrator of FSIS. His previous role at Tyson raises significant ethical questions regarding food safety oversight. I urge you to advocate for stronger regulations that prevent industry insiders from holding such critical positions."
### 4. **Engage with Consumer Advocacy Groups** - **Action**: Join or support organizations that focus on food safety and ethical food practices. - **Example**: Organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) or Food & Water Watch often have campaigns you can join or support. You can also participate in their actions, such as fundraising or community outreach efforts.
### 5. **Support Local and Ethical Food Sources** - **Action**: Shift your purchasing decisions towards local and sustainably sourced meat and produce. - **Example**: Buy from local farmers’ markets or community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs. - **What to Say**: When interacting with vendors, ask about their farming practices and commitment to animal welfare and environmental sustainability.
### 6. **Participate in Public Comment Opportunities** - **Action**: Keep an eye out for public comment periods regarding FSIS regulations and policies. - **Example**: Submit comments to FSIS when they propose new rules or changes to existing regulations. These comments can influence policy decisions.
### 7. **Spread Awareness of Misleading Claims** - **Action**: Inform your community about misleading marketing and labeling practices in the meat industry. - **Example**: Create informational flyers or host discussions on the importance of understanding food labels and the potential for greenwashing in meat products.
### 8. **Use Social Media as a Tool for Advocacy** - **Action**: Utilize platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to voice your concerns. - **Example**: Tag relevant officials and organizations in your posts about food safety issues, encouraging public discourse around Ransom’s appointment.
### Conclusion By engaging in these actions, individuals can contribute to a broader movement advocating for transparency and accountability in food safety oversight. It’s essential to remain vigilant and proactive in holding our officials accountable to ensure the public health and safety of our food supply.