Vegetarians would prefer not to be compelled to eat meat. Yet the reverse compulsion (强迫) is hidden in the proposals for a new plant-based "planetary diet". Nowhere is this more visible than in India.

        Earlier this year, the EAT-Lancet Commission released its global report on nutrition and called for a global shift to a more plant-based diet and for “substantially reducing consumption of animal source foods.” In countries like India, that call could become a tool to aggravate an already tense political situation and stress already undernourished populations.

        The EAT report presumes that “traditional diets” in countries like India include little red meat, which might be consumed only on special occasions or as minor ingredients in mixed dishes.

        In India, however, there is a vast difference between what people would wish to consume and what they have to consume because of innumerable barriers around class, religion, culture, cost, geography, etc. Policymakers in India have traditionally pushed for a cereal-heavy “vegetarian diet” on a meat-eating population as a way of providing the cheapest sources of food.

        Currently, under an aggressive Hindu nationalist government, Muslims, Christians, disadvantaged classes and indigenous communities are being compelled to give up their traditional foods.

        None of these concerns seem to have been appreciated by the EAT-Lancet Commission’s representative, Brent Loken, who said “India has got such a great example” in sourcing protein from plants.

        But how much of a model for the world is India’s vegetarianism? In the Global Hunger Index 2019, the country ranks 102nd out of 117. Data from the National Family Health Survey indicate that only 10 percent of infants of 6 to 23 months are adequately fed.  

        Which is why calls for a plant-based diet modeled on India risk offering another whip with which to beat already vulnerable communities in developing countries.

        A diet directed at the affluent West fails to recognize that in low-income countries undernourished children are known to benefit from the consumption of milk and other animal source foods, improving cognitive functions, while reducing the prevalence of nutritional deficiencies as well as mortality.

        EAT-Lancet claimed its intention was to “spark conversations” among all Indian stakeholders. Yet vocal critics of the food processing industry and food fortification strategies have been left out of the debate. But the most conspicuous omission may well be the absence of India’s farmers.

        The government, however, seems to have given the report a thumbs-up. Rather than addressing chronic hunger and malnutrition through an improved access to wholesome and nutrient-dense foods, the government is opening the door for company-dependent solutions, ignoring the environmental and economic cost, which will destroy local food systems. It’s a model full of danger for future generations.

解析：B。根据题干中的more visible in India than anywhere else可定位至原文第一段结尾的“这一点在印度最为明显”（Nowhere is this more visible than in India.）。本段前面提到，素食者不喜欢被人逼着吃肉。但是，一项倡导植物性“星球膳食”的新提议却暗藏了一种反向强迫（reverse compulsion）。由此可知，在印度尤为明显的一点就是首句提到的“反向强迫”，指的是就像素食者不喜欢被人逼着吃肉一样，印度人也不愿意被强迫吃植物性食物。故正确答案为B。

错项排除：A项利用原文第一段出现的proposals和“planetary diet”设置干扰，但原文中没有提到positive views（持积极态度），而是指出这是另外一种形式的强迫，A项与原文意思相悖，故排除。原文中虽然提到素食者不喜欢吃肉，但没有将印度人对于某种食物种类的偏好与其他国家相比，故排除C项。D项利用原文第五段出现的give up their traditional foods设置干扰，但原文中也没有比较不同国家人民放弃原有饮食习惯的意愿，D项不符合题意，故排除。