Still, the basis of the claims here are that "if the calories are reduced, you should assume it's now a low-calorie food". By way of example, 99 is as close as makes no difference to 100, but is still technically less. Pepsi may have reduced the sugar in their recipe by 1% and still be able to make this claim without actually lying. Hoping you'll overlook this fact, and by breezing past the total absence of any useful caloric information, Pepsi presses women's insecurity button by implying that all women should be thin so they can serve as pleasant scenery for men to look at while appreciating trendy music. Nice!
Grammatical note: Maybe 5% of the American population understand the difference between "less" and "fewer". This is pretty commonly heard when discussing calories. "Less calories" is wrong. It should be "fewer calories", because "calories" is plural. If the subject were singular, it would be "less". Things that are counted on-by-one get the word "fewer". Things that are described with the same word if there's one or ten of them get "fewer". Here...
fewer water" "less water"
"fewer deer" "
"fewer mistakes" "
"fewer sandwiches" "
"fewer calories" "
"fewer hours" "
But, nobody really pays attention to language any more. Nobody will call you on it if you ignore this rule.
Musical note: What are these trendy hipsters listening to? Let's go in for a closer look...
|Oooo! They've got the new Handy Ioidll record! That one's burning up the charts! It's so trendy! He's about to put it on right now!|
|Oh man! They've also got the new popular album by "Jazz". Those guys rock! Well, not exactly. Those guys totally jazz!|
|"Lot..." "H". We can only assume from this that the Pepsi drinkers will soon be listening to the new release from Lothar of the Hill People. Finally! This one approves!|
Lothar of the Hill People, from when Mike Meyers was funny, and had not yet made The Love Guru.
|Click for big.|