A Los Angeles-based high school student has filed suit in federal court against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and her school for violation of her first amendment rights. Marielle Williamson’s campaign to raise health issues related to the exclusive promotion of cow’s milk in the cafeteria was canceled by the school.

The NSLP is a federally assisted meal program, operating in close to 100,000 public and nonprofit private schools as well as child care institutions.

The program, according to the USDA website, “provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost, or free lunches to children each school day.”

Williamson was told by her school principal that she could not share information about plant-based milk or criticize dairy products in the school cafeteria unless she also distributed positive information about dairy as well.

According to the lawsuit, Steinorth’s response was ambiguous, instructing Williamson in an email that, per his district supervisor and the Cafeteria Branch, they had decided as follows: “You can have a table set up outside at lunch with her flyers on the pros and cons of drinking milk, but you should also have some literature for both sides of the debate.” Steinorth added, “I don’t think [these restrictions are] too unreasonable.”

Williamson told the Epoch Times that every day during the school’s PA (public address) announcements the menu for lunch is read and the announcement always ends with the presenter saying, “Got Milk?”

The Epoch Times could not reach Steinorth for comment.

“One thing unusual about this case is we are alleging viewpoint discrimination,” Deborah Press, associate general counsel for the Physician’s Committee, told the Epoch Times. “The government can’t tell you that you have to present both sides of the issue. This is an unusual variety of First Amendment violation. The law is pretty clear cut on this.”

According to Press, over time the USDA regulations have morphed to protect milk even more exclusively at the cost of students’ free speech rights and the availability of other beverages.

The USDA memorandum reads in part: “commercially packaged water and potable water should not be made available on the serving line in any manner that interferes with or appears to substitute for the selection of components of the reimbursable meal, including low-fat or fat-free milk.”

The memorandum goes on to state that a school “can offer water pitchers and cups on lunch tables, a water fountain, or a faucet that allows students to fill their own bottles or cups with drinking water.” But water may not be offered within the cafeteria line as this could “interfere with or appear to substitute for the selection of … milk.”

Williamson said that there is no water in the cafeteria line at her school and that students who don’t take milk are handed milk by cafeteria workers in the name of including the dairy food group in their meal.

“Students just end up throwing the milk out,” said Williamson. “But the milk industry doesn’t care because it still counts as a sale for them.”

The NSLP mandates that cow’s milk must be offered at every school lunch and breakfast served under its programs.

Press said that currently, under the NSLP, students are not entitled to a beverage substitute to dairy milk, such as plant-based milks or juice, unless they have a doctor’s verification of a disability.

Williamson said that students at Eagle Rock don’t even know that they have this medical exemption option.

“It’s not on the menus or the publicity and no one ever mentions it,” she said.

Last October, Williamson conducted a survey of students at her school about plant-based milks.

“The USDA should prioritize student health, and prioritizing student health means having plant-based milk as an option,” Williamson said. “There’s a large demand among students for plant-based milk … the plant-based milk industry is growing …that’s a concern in itself [for the dairy industry] … the choices shouldn’t be about sales—it should be about the well-being of students. That’s what the national lunch program should be about.”

Press pointed out there’s an “inherent conflict of interest” in the USDA’s dual mission of providing dietary guidelines that promote public health and with the school lunch program, and their overall aim to promote the agricultural industry.

“Here [with the milk regulations] we see program-level USDA employees and school districts enlisted by the dairy industry to eliminate any threat to the primacy of milk in schools. Even where that threat is a bottle of water or a student with a pamphlet,” she said.

She pointed out that Tom Vilsack spent the four years between his two stints as agriculture secretary as CEO of the U.S. Dairy Export Council.

Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Press said that the Physician’s Committee was able to obtain evidence of direct influence of the dairy industry on USDA regulators.

“In one email,” Press told the Epoch Times, “a USDA employee reports that dairy industry reps suggested language for the water memo that appears nearly verbatim in the final version. The emails show that the water memo was issued at the behest of the dairy industry.”

The emails from the FOIA request shared with the Epoch Times show a clear pattern of industry influence on both the drafting and the enforcement of regulations. In one email, one can see USDA officials responding to concerns raised by dairy distributors with a detailed action list to “eliminate the promotion of water or other beverages as an alternative to milk during meal service.”

The emails also show that the USDA appears to have issued warnings or demanded focused reviews of “offending” signage by Kansas and Oklahoma state agencies participating in NSLP that were accused of detracting from the promotion of milk.

Press wrote in an email to the Epoch Times, “the USDA and the dairy industry are so completely intertwined as to be indistinguishable, from top to bottom.”

Press felt confident that Williamson’s First Amendment claims are strong in this case, but she said she didn’t know whether the USDA would adjust the policy voluntarily or whether a ruling that went against the department would be appealed.

Asked if she thought it would end up before the Supreme Court, Press laughed and said, “I haven’t thought that far ahead.”