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：C。根据题干中的EAT-Lancet Commission’s report和countries like India可定位至原文第二段。该段第二句指出，在像印度这样的国家，柳叶刀报告中对于植物性饮食的呼吁可能会使原本紧张的政治局势雪上加霜，给本就营养不足的民众带来压力。C项与此内容相符，其中的undernourished为原词复现，故正确答案为C。

错项排除：文中只提到柳叶刀报告对于人们饮食习惯的影响，但没有到可以彻底改变的程度，A项属于过分夸大，故排除。B项利用原文第二段中出现的political设置干扰，但这里只是说柳叶刀报告倡导的植物性饮食会使原本紧张的政治局势雪上加霜，并不是使人们更加远离政治，故排除B项。D项利用原文第二段中出现的substantially reducing consumption of animal source foods设置干扰，但这里说的是该报告呼吁人们大幅减少动物源食材的消耗，而不是大大减少食物的选择，D项属于偷换概念，故排除。