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：A。根据题干中的Indian government可定位至原文最后一段。该段开头提到，印度政府似乎对这份报告大加赞赏；并在末尾提到，这种模式将对后代子孙贻害无穷。A项是对此内容的概括总结，其中的accepts them对应原文最后一段中的have given the report a thumbs-up，at the expense of the long-term interests是对该段结尾danger for future generations的同义转述，故正确答案为A。

错项排除：B项利用原文倒数第二段中的“spark conversations” among all Indian stakeholders设置干扰，这是柳叶刀饮食委员会发布报告的目的，而非印度政府对提议的回应，B项属于张冠李戴，故排除。原文中只提到那些谴责食品加工业和食品强化战略的人被排挤到辩论之外，但没有提到营养专家是否反对，故排除C项。D项利用原文第二段中的tool和最后一段中的addressing chronic hunger and malnutrition设置干扰，但原文说的是印度政府没能改善长期饥饿和营养不良的问题，故排除D项。