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。题目问的是印度人民的饮食情况，根据选项中的关键词EAT-Lancet report、foods they prefer、cereal-heavy vegetarian diet、policymakers和barriers可定位至原文第三至五段。第四段第一句提到，在印度，由于阶级、宗教等方面存在诸多屏障，人们想吃的食物（what people would wish to consume）与不得不吃的食物（what they have to consume）之间有着巨大的差异。第五段又提到，受到政府的影响，很多人群正在被迫放弃他们的传统食物。由此可知，有很多人都吃不到他们想吃的食物。B项与此内容相符，其中的foods they prefer是对原文第四段第一句中what people would wish to consume的同义替换，故正确答案为B。

错项排除：原文第二段提到，在像印度这样的国家，柳叶刀报告会给本就营养不足的民众带来压力，由此可知，该报告会对印度人民的饮食造成影响，A项与此内容相悖，故排除。C项利用原文第四段中提到的a cereal-heavy “vegetarian diet”（以谷类为主的“素食”）设置干扰，但该处说的是印度的政策制定者提倡以肉食为主的人们遵行以谷类为主的“素食”，并没有提到这类素食是否受欢迎，故排除C项。D项利用原文第四段中出现的barriers和Policymakers设置干扰，但原文中提到的印度在各方面的屏障和政策制定者推行素食之间没有直接联系，D项属于细节拼凑，故排除。