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：D。根据题干中的a plant-based diet modeled on India可定位至原文第八段。该段提到，呼吁人们效仿印度的植物性饮食可能会给发展中国家原本脆弱的群体再一次带来打击。由此可知，效仿印度的植物性饮食可能会加剧低收入国家的营养问题。D项与此内容相符，其中的worsen the nourishment problem对应原文第八段中的offering another whip，low-income countries对应该段中的developing countries，故正确答案为D。

错项排除：A项利用原文第四段出现的meat-eating population设置干扰，但原文只是说印度提倡那些以肉食为主的人遵行素食，并使得一些人群放弃了自己的传统饮食，并没有说这对于他们来说是有益的，而且原文明确说到这会加剧营养问题，所以并非是有益的，故A项错误。B项利用原文第八段中的another whip和developing countries设置干扰，但这里只提到对发展中国家弱势群体的打击，未提到对其经济的影响，故排除B项。原文第九段虽然提到了富裕的西方国家（the affluent West）和低收入国家（low-income countries），但这里说的是针对富裕国家的植物性饮食并不适用于低收入国家，没有说到这缩小了二者之间的差距，故排除C项。