The Secretary of State for Health recently announced a legislative proposal to introduce a 20% excise tax on all ultra-processed foods (UPFs) sold in supermarkets.
Under the draft bill, the tax will apply to food products containing more than five industrial ingredients. Department of Health analysts project this policy will decrease UPF consumption by 12.5% over the next three years, generating £1.8 billion in annual tax revenue. The Health Secretary declared that immediate state intervention is crucial because "it is a moral outrage that low-income families are systematically poisoned by cheap, nutrient-deficient corporate products."
However, Marcus Vance, director of the Food Retailers' Consortium, condemned the tax. "An excise tax is a highly regressive measure that will cost the average household an extra £210 per year, disproportionately hurting the poorest in society," he stated. "The government has no right to play the nanny state and dictate consumer choice; instead, they should focus on voluntary industry reform." Conversely, public health campaigners praised the initiative, arguing that physical health is a fundamental right and that the government is ethically obligated to safeguard children from predatory marketing.
With reference to Extract A, explain the difference between a positive statement and a normative statement.
