CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Nov. 26, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES We are a party to various environmental proceedings and litigation, primarily related to our acquisition in fiscal 1991 of Beatrice Company ("Beatrice"). As a result of the acquisition of Beatrice and the significant pre-acquisition contingencies of the Beatrice businesses and its former subsidiaries, our condensed consolidated post-acquisition financial statements reflect liabilities associated with the estimated resolution of these contingencies. Such liabilities include various litigation and environmental proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of Beatrice. The litigation proceedings include suits against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("ConAgra Grocery Products"), and the Company as alleged successors to W. P. Fuller Co., a lead paint and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by a predecessor to Beatrice from 1962 until 1967. Although decisions favorable to us have been rendered in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, we remain a defendant in active suits in Illinois and California. The Illinois suit seeks class-wide relief for reimbursement of costs associated with the testing of lead levels in blood. In California, a number of cities and counties joined in a consolidated action seeking abatement of the alleged public nuisance. On September 23, 2013, a trial of the California case concluded in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, and on January 27, 2014, the court entered a judgment (the "Judgment") against ConAgra Grocery Products and two other defendants ordering the creation of a California abatement fund in the amount of $1.15 billion. Liability is joint and several. The Company appealed the Judgment, and on November 14, 2017 the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District reversed in part, holding that the defendants were not liable to pay for abatement of homes built after 1950, but affirmed the Judgment as to homes built before 1951 and remanded to the trial court with directions to recalculate the sum to be paid into the abatement fund. The Company has petitioned the California Supreme Court for further review of the decision, which the Company believes to be an unprecedented expansion of current California law. In light of the unsettled nature of California public nuisance law and the ongoing appeal, a loss is considered neither probable nor estimable, and the Company has accordingly not accrued any loss related to this case. In addition, it is not possible to estimate exposure in the remaining case in Illinois, which is based on different legal theories. If ultimately necessary, the Company will look to its insurance policies for coverage; its carriers are on notice. However, the extent of insurance coverage is uncertain, and the Company cannot assure that the final resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The current environmental proceedings associated with Beatrice include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's possible status as a potentially responsible party at approximately 40 Superfund, proposed Superfund, or state-equivalent sites (the "Beatrice sites"). These sites involve locations previously owned or operated by predecessors of Beatrice that used or produced petroleum, pesticides, fertilizers, dyes, inks, solvents, PCBs, acids, lead, sulfur, tannery wastes, and/or other contaminants. In the past five years, Beatrice has paid or is in the process of paying its liability share at 31 of these sites. Reserves for these Beatrice environmental proceedings have been established based on our best estimate of the undiscounted remediation liabilities, which estimates include evaluation of investigatory studies, extent of required clean-up, the known volumetric contribution of Beatrice and other potentially responsible parties, and its experience in remediating sites. The accrual for Beatrice-related environmental matters totaled $52.8 million as of November 26, 2017, a majority of which relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites referenced above. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was submitted for the Southwest Properties portion of the Wells G&H Superfund site, which is one of the Beatrice sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") issued a Record of Decision (the "ROD") for the Southwest Properties portion of the site on September 29, 2017, and will subsequently enter into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to determine final responsibility for implementing the ROD. In June 2009, an accidental explosion occurred at our manufacturing facility in Garner, North Carolina. This facility was the primary production facility for our Slim Jim^® branded meat snacks. In June 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced its determination that the explosion was the result of an accidental natural gas release and not a deliberate act. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, we settled our property and business interruption claims related to the Garner accident with our insurance providers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. ("Jacobs"), our engineer and project manager at the site, filed a declaratory judgment action against us seeking indemnity for personal injury claims brought against it as a result of the accident. During the first quarter of fiscal 2012, our motion for summary judgment was granted and the suit was dismissed without prejudice on the basis that the suit was filed prematurely. In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, Jacobs refiled its action seeking indemnity. On March 25, 2016, a Douglas County jury in Nebraska rendered a verdict in favor of Jacobs and against us in the amount of $108.9 million plus post-judgment interest. We filed our Notice of Appeal in September 2016, and the case is awaiting decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court. The appeal will be decided directly by the Nebraska Supreme Court. Although our insurance carriers have provided customary notices of reservation of their rights under the policies of insurance, we expect any ultimate exposure in this case to be limited to the applicable insurance deductible. We are party to a number of putative class action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's product labeling. These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson^® oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms. In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017. The United States Supreme Court declined to review the decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business. We are party to a number of matters challenging the Company's wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of putative class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at several current and former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business. In certain limited situations, we guarantee obligations of the Lamb Weston business pursuant to guarantee arrangements that existed prior to the Spinoff and remained in place following completion of the Spinoff until such guarantee obligations are substituted for guarantees issued by Lamb Weston. Such guarantee arrangements are described below. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated as of November 8, 2016 (the "Separation Agreement"), between us and Lamb Weston, these guarantee arrangements are deemed liabilities of Lamb Weston that were transferred to Lamb Weston as part of the Spinoff. Accordingly, in the event that we are required to make any payments as a result of these guarantee arrangements, Lamb Weston is obligated to indemnify us for any such liability, reduced by any insurance proceeds received by us, in accordance with the terms of the indemnification provisions under the Separation Agreement. Lamb Weston is a party to a warehouse services agreement with a third-party warehouse provider through July 2035. Under this agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make payments for warehouse services based on the quantity of goods stored and other service factors. We have guaranteed the warehouse provider that we will make the payments required under the agreement in the event that Lamb Weston fails to perform. Minimum payments of $1.5 million per month are required under this agreement. It is not possible to determine the maximum amount of the payment obligations under this agreement. Upon completion of the Spinoff, we recognized a liability for the estimated fair value of this guarantee. As of November 26, 2017, the amount of this guarantee, recorded in other noncurrent liabilities, was $28.9 million. Lamb Weston is a party to an agricultural sublease agreement with a third party for certain farmland through 2020 (subject, at Lamb Weston's option, to extension for two additional five-year periods). Under the terms of the sublease agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make certain rental payments to the sublessor. We have guaranteed the sublessor Lamb Weston's performance and the payment of all amounts (including indemnification obligations) owed by Lamb Weston under the sublease agreement, up to a maximum of $75.0 million. We believe the farmland associated with this sublease agreement is readily marketable for lease to other area farming operators. As such, we believe that any financial exposure to the company, in the event that we were required to perform under the guaranty, would be largely mitigated. We lease certain office buildings from entities that we have determined to be variable interest entities. The lease agreements contain put options exercisable now and remain exercisable until generally 30 days after the end of the respective lease agreements, that allow the lessors to require us to purchase the buildings at the greater of original construction cost, or fair market value, without a lease in place. We have financial exposure with respect to these entities in the event we are required to purchase the leased buildings for a price in excess of the then current fair value under the applicable lease purchase options. We are amortizing the difference between the put price and the estimated fair value (without a lease agreement in place) of each respective property over the remaining respective lease term within selling, general and administrative expenses. As of November 26, 2017 and May 28, 2017, the estimated amount by which the put prices exceeded the fair values of the related properties was $50.7 million, of which we had accrued $10.2 million and $8.4 million, respectively. In December 2017, subsequent to the second quarter of fiscal 2018, we purchased a building that had been subject to a put option. We will recognize a net loss of approximately $13 million for the early termination of the associated lease in our third quarter of fiscal 2018. Also in December 2017, we made an offer to purchase another property subject to a put option. We have not entered into a binding legal contract in connection with this offer. However, if our offer is accepted, we may recognize an estimated loss of $30 million to $40 million, upon closing of the transaction, for the early exit of an unfavorable lease contract. If this transaction is completed, we would have one remaining leased building subject to a put option for which the put option price exceeds the estimated fair value by $8.2 million, of which we had accrued $1.0 million, as of November 26, 2017. After taking into account liabilities recognized for all of the foregoing matters, management believes the ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. It is reasonably possible that a change of the estimates of any of the foregoing matters may occur in the future and, as noted, while unlikely, the lead paint matter could result in a material final judgment. Costs of legal services associated with the foregoing matters are recognized in earnings as services are provided.

CONTINGENCIES

We are a party to various environmental proceedings and litigation, primarily related to our acquisition in fiscal 1991 of Beatrice Company ("Beatrice"). As a result of the acquisition of Beatrice and the significant pre-acquisition contingencies of the Beatrice businesses and its former subsidiaries, our condensed consolidated post-acquisition financial statements reflect liabilities associated with the estimated resolution of these contingencies. Such liabilities include various litigation and environmental proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of Beatrice. The litigation proceedings include suits against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("ConAgra Grocery Products"), and the Company as alleged successors to W. P. Fuller Co., a lead paint and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by a predecessor to Beatrice from 1962 until 1967. Although decisions favorable to us have been rendered in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, we remain a defendant in active suits in Illinois and California. The Illinois suit seeks class-wide relief for reimbursement of costs associated with the testing of lead levels in blood. In California, a number of cities and counties joined in a consolidated action seeking abatement of the alleged public nuisance. On September 23, 2013, a trial of the California case concluded in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, and on January 27, 2014, the court entered a judgment (the "Judgment") against ConAgra Grocery Products and two other defendants ordering the creation of a California abatement fund in the amount of $1.15 billion. Liability is joint and several. The Company appealed the Judgment, and on November 14, 2017 the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District reversed in part, holding that the defendants were not liable to pay for abatement of homes built after 1950, but affirmed the Judgment as to homes built before 1951 and remanded to the trial court with directions to recalculate the sum to be paid into the abatement fund. The Company has petitioned the California Supreme Court for further review of the decision, which the Company believes to be an unprecedented expansion of current California law. In light of the unsettled nature of California public nuisance law and the ongoing appeal, a loss is considered neither probable nor estimable, and the Company has accordingly not accrued any loss related to this case. In addition, it is not possible to estimate exposure in the remaining case in Illinois, which is based on different legal theories. If ultimately necessary, the Company will look to its insurance policies for coverage; its carriers are on notice. However, the extent of insurance coverage is uncertain, and the Company cannot assure that the final resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

The current environmental proceedings associated with Beatrice include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's possible status as a potentially responsible party at approximately 40 Superfund, proposed Superfund, or state-equivalent sites (the "Beatrice sites"). These sites involve locations previously owned or operated by predecessors of Beatrice that used or produced petroleum, pesticides, fertilizers, dyes, inks, solvents, PCBs, acids, lead, sulfur, tannery wastes, and/or other contaminants. In the past five years, Beatrice has paid or is in the process of paying its liability share at 31 of these sites. Reserves for these Beatrice environmental proceedings have been established based on our best estimate of the undiscounted remediation liabilities, which estimates include evaluation of investigatory studies, extent of required clean-up, the known volumetric contribution of Beatrice and other potentially responsible parties, and its experience in remediating sites. The accrual for Beatrice-related environmental matters totaled $52.8 million as of November 26, 2017, a majority of which relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites referenced above. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was submitted for the Southwest Properties portion of the Wells G&H Superfund site, which is one of the Beatrice sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") issued a Record of Decision (the "ROD") for the Southwest Properties portion of the site on September 29, 2017, and will subsequently enter into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to determine final responsibility for implementing the ROD.

In June 2009, an accidental explosion occurred at our manufacturing facility in Garner, North Carolina. This facility was the primary production facility for our Slim Jim^® branded meat snacks. In June 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced its determination that the explosion was the result of an accidental natural gas release and not a deliberate act. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, we settled our property and business interruption claims related to the Garner accident with our insurance providers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. ("Jacobs"), our engineer and project manager at the site, filed a declaratory judgment action against us seeking indemnity for personal injury claims brought against it as a result of the accident. During the first quarter of fiscal 2012, our motion for summary judgment was granted and the suit was dismissed without prejudice on the basis that the suit was filed prematurely. In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, Jacobs refiled its action seeking indemnity. On March 25, 2016, a Douglas County jury in Nebraska rendered a verdict in favor of Jacobs and against us in the amount of $108.9 million plus post-judgment interest. We filed our Notice of Appeal in September 2016, and the case is awaiting decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court. The appeal will be decided directly by the Nebraska Supreme Court. Although our insurance carriers have provided customary notices of reservation of their rights under the policies of insurance, we expect any ultimate exposure in this case to be limited to the applicable insurance deductible.

We are party to a number of putative class action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's product labeling. These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson^® oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms. In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017. The United States Supreme Court declined to review the decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business.

We are party to a number of matters challenging the Company's wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of putative class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at several current and former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business.

In certain limited situations, we guarantee obligations of the Lamb Weston business pursuant to guarantee arrangements that existed prior to the Spinoff and remained in place following completion of the Spinoff until such guarantee obligations are substituted for guarantees issued by Lamb Weston. Such guarantee arrangements are described below. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated as of November 8, 2016 (the "Separation Agreement"), between us and Lamb Weston, these guarantee arrangements are deemed liabilities of Lamb Weston that were transferred to Lamb Weston as part of the Spinoff. Accordingly, in the event that we are required to make any payments as a result of these guarantee arrangements, Lamb Weston is obligated to indemnify us for any such liability, reduced by any insurance proceeds received by us, in accordance with the terms of the indemnification provisions under the Separation Agreement.

Lamb Weston is a party to a warehouse services agreement with a third-party warehouse provider through July 2035. Under this agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make payments for warehouse services based on the quantity of goods stored and other service factors. We have guaranteed the warehouse provider that we will make the payments required under the agreement in the event that Lamb Weston fails to perform. Minimum payments of $1.5 million per month are required under this agreement. It is not possible to determine the maximum amount of the payment obligations under this agreement. Upon completion of the Spinoff, we recognized a liability for the estimated fair value of this guarantee. As of November 26, 2017, the amount of this guarantee, recorded in other noncurrent liabilities, was $28.9 million.

Lamb Weston is a party to an agricultural sublease agreement with a third party for certain farmland through 2020 (subject, at Lamb Weston's option, to extension for two additional five-year periods). Under the terms of the sublease agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make certain rental payments to the sublessor. We have guaranteed the sublessor Lamb Weston's performance and the payment of all amounts (including indemnification obligations) owed by Lamb Weston under the sublease agreement, up to a maximum of $75.0 million. We believe the farmland associated with this sublease agreement is readily marketable for lease to other area farming operators. As such, we believe that any financial exposure to the company, in the event that we were required to perform under the guaranty, would be largely mitigated.

We lease certain office buildings from entities that we have determined to be variable interest entities. The lease agreements contain put options exercisable now and remain exercisable until generally 30 days after the end of the respective lease agreements, that allow the lessors to require us to purchase the buildings at the greater of original construction cost, or fair market value, without a lease in place. We have financial exposure with respect to these entities in the event we are required to purchase the leased buildings for a price in excess of the then current fair value under the applicable lease purchase options. We are amortizing the difference between the put price and the estimated fair value (without a lease agreement in place) of each respective property over the remaining respective lease term within selling, general and administrative expenses. As of November 26, 2017 and May 28, 2017, the estimated amount by which the put prices exceeded the fair values of the related properties was $50.7 million, of which we had accrued $10.2 million and $8.4 million, respectively. In December 2017, subsequent to the second quarter of fiscal 2018, we purchased a building that had been subject to a put option. We will recognize a net loss of approximately $13 million for the early termination of the associated lease in our third quarter of fiscal 2018. Also in December 2017, we made an offer to purchase another property subject to a put option. We have not entered into a binding legal contract in connection with this offer. However, if our offer is accepted, we may recognize an estimated loss of $30 million to $40 million, upon closing of the transaction, for the early exit of an unfavorable lease contract. If this transaction is completed, we would have one remaining leased building subject to a put option for which the put option price exceeds the estimated fair value by $8.2 million, of which we had accrued $1.0 million, as of November 26, 2017.

After taking into account liabilities recognized for all of the foregoing matters, management believes the ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. It is reasonably possible that a change of the estimates of any of the foregoing matters may occur in the future and, as noted, while unlikely, the lead paint matter could result in a material final judgment. Costs of legal services associated with the foregoing matters are recognized in earnings as services are provided.