Putin welcomes tax exile Depardieu with open arms

Putin has offered Gérard Depardieu an escape route from Hollande's 75 per cent tax by granting him Russian nationality.

Vladimir Putin  has today signed a decree that grants Russian citizenship to French film veteran Gérard Depardieu. 

This is the latest development in the brouhaha surrounding the actor's very public opposition to François Hollande's proposed 75 per cent tax on those earning over 1m euros. The proposal was rejected by the French Constitutional Court on Sunday on the grounds it is unfair as it will be applied only to individuals. The President insists that he will push through a revised version of the measure. 

Depardieu expressed his intention to give up his French nationality in an open letter to to French PM Jean-Marc Ayrault, who had previously described the actor as "pathetic" and "unpatriotic".

According to France's civil code, which rules that a person cannot be stateless, Putin's offer of a passport will allow Depardieu to give up his French nationality. His earnings will now be subject to Russian tax, which is fixed at 13 per cent. 

The actor has a warm relationship with the Russian leader, who had  already declared two weeks ago that “If Gérard wants a Russian passport, it is a done deal”. Meanwhile, last week Depardieu was heard in his Parisian restaurant boasting, “Putin has already sent me a passport.”

Depardieu also has close ties with Chechnya's  controversial President Ramzan Kadyrof, who has been accused by human rights groups of persecuting his critics, among other offences. The actor was filmed at Kadyrif's birthday party in October 2012 making a rousing speech in which he cried “Glory to Ramzan Kadryof”. He is well-known in Russia, appearing in television campaigns for a grocery chain, Sovietski bank and a brand of ketchup.

He has recently purchased a home in the Belgian border town of Néchin, where he now officially resides. Almost a third of the town's inhabitants are French, and it is well-known as a tax avoidancpied à terre for France's high-earners. Depardieu reportedly still spends much of his time in Paris.

Vladimir Putin has offered Gérard Depardieu an escape route from higher taxes (Getty Images)
Davide Restivo at Wikimedia Commons
Show Hide image

Scientists have finally said it: alcohol causes cancer

Enough of "linked" and "attributable": a new paper concludes that alcohol directly causes seven types of cancer.

I don't blame you if you switch off completely at the words "causes cancer". If you pay attention to certain publications, everything from sunbeds, to fish, to not getting enough sun, can all cause cancer. But this time, it's worth listening.

The journal Addiction has published a paper that makes a simple, yet startling, claim: 

"Evidence can support the judgement that alcohol causes cancer of the oropharynx [part of the throat], larynx, oesophagus, liver, colon, rectum and [female] breast"

So what's especially significant about this? 

First, scientists, unlike journalists, are very wary of the word "causes". It's hard to ever prove that one action directly led to another, rather than that both happened to occur within the same scenario. And yet Jennie Connor, author of the paper and professor in the Preventive and Social Medicine department at the University of Otago, New Zealand, has taken the leap.

Second, alcohol not only causes cancer of one kind – the evidence supports the claim that it causes cancer at seven different sites in our bodies. There was weaker evidence that it may also cause skin, prostate and pancreatic cancer, while the link between mouth cancers and alcohol consumption was the strongest. 

What did we know about alcohol and cancer before?

Many, many studies have "linked" cancer to alcohol, or argued that some cases may be "attributable" to alcohol consumption. 

This paper loooks back over a decade's worth of research into alcohol and cancer, and Connor concludes that all this evidence, taken together, proves that alcohol "increases the incidence of [cancer] in the population".

However, as Connor notes in her paper, "alcohol’s causal role is perceived to be more complex than tobacco's", partly because we still don't know exactly how alcohol causes cancer at these sites. Yet she argues that the evidence alone is enough to prove the cause, even if we don't know exactly how the "biologial mechanisms" work. 

Does this mean that drinking = cancer, then?

No. A causal link doesn't mean one thing always leads to the other. Also, cancer in these seven sites was shown to have what's called a "dose-response" relationship, which means the more you drink, the more you increase your chances of cancer.

On the bright side, scientists have also found that if you stop drinking altogether, you can reduce your chances back down again.

Are moderate drinkers off the hook?

Nope. Rather devastatingly, Connor notes that moderate drinkers bear a "considerable" portion of the cancer risk, and that targeting only heavy drinkers with alcohol risk reduction campaigns would have "limited" impact. 

What does this mean for public health? 

This is the tricky bit. In the paper, Connor points out that, given what we know about lung cancer and tobacco, the general advice is simply not to smoke. Now, a strong link proven over years of research may suggest the same about drinking, an activity society views as a bit risky but generally harmless.

Yet in 2012, it's estimated that alcohol-attributable cancers killed half a million people, which made up 5.8 per cent of cancer deaths worldwide. As we better understand the links between the two, it's possible that this proportion may turn out to be a lot higher. 

As she was doing the research, Connor commented:

"We've grown up with thinking cancer is very mysterious, we don't know what causes it and it's frightening, so to think that something as ordinary as drinking is associated with cancer I think is quite difficult."

What do we do now?

Drink less. The one semi-silver lining in the study is that the quantity of alcohol you consume has a real bearing on your risk of developing these cancers. 

On a wider scale, it looks like we need to recalibrate society's perspective on drinking. Drug campaigners have long pointed out that alcohol, while legal, is one of the most toxic and harmful drugs available  an argument that this study will bolster.

In January, England's chief medical officer Sally Davies introduced some of the strictest guidelines on alcohol consumption in the world, and later shocked a parliamentary hearing by saying that drinking could cause breast cancer.

"I would like people to take their choice knowing the issues," she told the hearing, "And do as I do when I reach for my glass of wine and think... do I want to raise my risk of breast cancer?"

Now, it's beginning to look like she was ahead of the curve. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.