CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
May 26, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES In fiscal 1991, we acquired Beatrice Company ("Beatrice"). As a result of the acquisition 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. These include various litigation and environmental proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to its acquisition by us. The litigation includes suits against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products and the Company as alleged successors to W. P. Fuller Co., a lead paint and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by Beatrice 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 in the form of medical monitoring for elevated levels of lead in blood. In California, a number of cities and counties have joined in a consolidated action seeking abatement of the alleged public nuisance. The environmental proceedings include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's status as a potentially responsible party at 36 Superfund, proposed Superfund, or state-equivalent 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. Beatrice has paid or is in the process of paying its liability share at 32 of these sites. Reserves for these matters 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 reserves for Beatrice-related environmental matters totaled $63.3 million as of May 26, 2013, a majority of which relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites referenced above. We expect expenditures for Beatrice-related environmental matters to continue for up to 18 years. In limited situations, we will guarantee an obligation of an unconsolidated entity. At the time in which we initially provide such a guarantee, we assess the risk of financial exposure to us under these agreements. We consider the credit-worthiness of the guaranteed party, the value of any collateral pledged against the related obligation, and any other factors that may mitigate our risk. We actively monitor market and entity-specific conditions that may result in a change of our assessment of the risk of loss under these agreements. We guarantee certain leases and other commercial obligations resulting from the 2002 divestiture of our fresh beef and pork operations. The remaining terms of these arrangements do not exceed 3 years and the maximum amount of future payments we have guaranteed was $8.1 million as of May 26, 2013. We also guaranteed the performance of the divested fresh beef and pork business with respect to a hog purchase contract that required the divested business to purchase a minimum of approximately 1.2 million hogs annually through June 1, 2013, and accordingly our guarantee of the hog purchase contract terminated during the first quarter of fiscal 2014. The contract stipulated minimum price commitments, based in part on market prices, and, in certain circumstances, also included price adjustments based on certain inputs. We did not establish a liability for any of the fresh beef and pork divestiture-related guarantees, as we have determined that the likelihood of our required performance under the guarantees is remote. We are a party to various potato supply agreements. Under the terms of certain such potato supply agreements, we have guaranteed repayment of short-term bank loans of the potato suppliers, under certain conditions. At May 26, 2013, the amount of supplier loans we have effectively guaranteed was $40.1 million. We have not established a liability for these guarantees, as we have determined that the likelihood of our required performance under the guarantees is remote. We were a party to a supply agreement with an onion processing company where we had guaranteed, under certain conditions, repayment of a secured loan (the "Secured Loan") of this onion supplier to the onion supplier's lender. The amount of our guarantee was $25.0 million. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, we received notice from the lender that the onion supplier had defaulted on the Secured Loan and we exercised our option to purchase the Secured Loan from the lender for $40.8 million, thereby assuming first-priority secured rights to the underlying collateral for the amount of the Secured Loan, and cancelling our guarantee. The onion supplier filed for bankruptcy on April 12, 2012 (during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012). The Secured Loan was classified as other assets at the end of fiscal 2012. During the second quarter of fiscal 2013, we acquired ownership and all rights to the collateral, consisting of agricultural land and a processing facility, securing the Secured Loan through the bankruptcy proceeding. During the third quarter of fiscal 2013, we recognized an impairment charge of $10.2 million in our Commercial Foods segment to reduce the carrying amount of the collateral to its estimated fair value based upon updated appraisals. Based on our estimate of the value of the land and processing facility, we expect to recover the remaining carrying value through our operation or sale of these assets. Federal income tax credits were generated related to our sweet potato production facility in Delhi, Louisiana. Third parties invested in certain of these income tax credits. We have guaranteed these third parties the face value of these income tax credits over their statutory lives, through fiscal 2017, in the event that the income tax credits are recaptured or reduced. The face value of the income tax credits was $21.2 million as of May 26, 2013. We believe the likelihood of the recapture or reduction of the income tax credits is remote, and therefore we have not established a liability in connection with this guarantee. We are a party to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of the operation of our business. Among these, there are lawsuits, claims, and matters related to the February 2007 recall of our peanut butter products. Among the matters during fiscal 2013 related to the peanut butter recall are litigation we initiated against an insurance carrier to recover our settlement expenditures and defense costs, and an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Georgia and the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice. During the first quarter of fiscal 2013 and during fiscal 2012, we recognized charges of $7.5 million and $17.5 million, respectively, in connection with the U.S. Attorney's office investigation. These amounts are in addition to a charge of $24.8 million we recognized during fiscal 2009 in connection with the insurance coverage dispute. During fiscal 2011, we received a favorable opinion in the insurance matter related to our defense costs, pursuant to which we received a total of $13.2 million, $11.8 million of which was recognized in income in fiscal 2012, and $1.4 million in fiscal 2013. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, a jury verdict was rendered in our favor in the amount of $25.0 million on the claim for disputed coverage, which was subject to appeal and not recognized in income in fiscal 2012. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, we reached a settlement on the insurance dispute, pursuant to which we were paid $25.0 million, in addition to retaining the defense costs previously reimbursed to us. We recognized the $25.0 million in income as a reduction to selling, general and administrative expenses during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013. With respect to the U.S. Attorney matter, in fiscal 2011, we received formal requests from the U.S. Attorney's office in Georgia seeking a variety of records and information related to the operations of our peanut butter manufacturing facility in Sylvester, Georgia. These requests continue and are related to the previously disclosed June 2007 execution of a search warrant at our facility following the February 2007 recall. We continue to engage in discussions with officials in regard to the investigation. 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. On June 13, 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., 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. In the first quarter of fiscal 2012, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment and dismissed the suit without prejudice on the basis that the suit was filed prematurely. We will continue to defend this action vigorously. Any exposure in this case is expected to be limited to the applicable insurance deductible. In April 2010, an accidental explosion occurred at our flour milling facility in Chester, Illinois. Two employees of a subcontractor and one employee of the primary contractor, Westside Salvage ("Westside"), on the site at the time of the accident suffered injuries in the accident. Suit was initiated against Westside and the Company for personal injury claims. During the first quarter of fiscal 2013, a jury in Federal Court sitting in East St. Louis, Illinois, returned a verdict against the Company and Westside and in favor of the three employees. The verdict was in the amount of $77.5 million in compensatory damages apportioned between the Company and Westside and $100.0 million in punitive damages against the Company. We filed post-trial motions and the Court reduced the punitive award against the Company to one employee by approximately $7 million. While we have insurance policies in place that we believe will cover the full amount of the compensatory and punitive damages apportioned to us (other than a $3 million deductible that we accrued in a prior period), we filed an appeal with the Seventh Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on the verdict and the damages in the third quarter of fiscal 2013. Any exposure in this case is expected to be limited to the applicable insurance deductible. During fiscal 2012, we were a party to several lawsuits concerning the use of diacetyl, a butter flavoring ingredient that was added to our microwave popcorn until late 2007. The cases were primarily consumer personal injury suits claiming respiratory illness allegedly due to exposures to vapors from microwaving popcorn. We received favorable outcomes in connection with some of these cases and settled the remaining pending cases in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. As of the date of this report, we did not have any pending lawsuits related to the use of diacetyl. During the third quarter of fiscal 2013, we were named a defendant in several shareholder derivative class action lawsuits brought in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis against directors of Ralcorp alleging breaches of fiduciary obligations by them in connection with their approval of the Acquisition. We were alleged to be an aider and abettor of those breaches. The suits sought injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, and other relief. There were other cases pending in the same Court, which were consolidated and made similar allegations against directors of Ralcorp to which we were not named a defendant. All of these cases were settled during the third quarter of fiscal 2013 for immaterial amounts. The settlement of these lawsuits is subject to final Court approval. Prior to our ownership of Ralcorp, a lawsuit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Frito-Lay North America, Inc. against Ralcorp and Medallion Foods, Inc., a subsidiary of Ralcorp, alleging that certain products manufactured by Medallion infringed Frito-Lays' patents and trademarks and misappropriated trade secrets. After a jury trial during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, jurors delivered a verdict in favor of Medallion and Ralcorp on all claims. Frito-Lay has filed a motion for a new trial. We will continue to defend this action vigorously. 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 in one of the estimates of the foregoing matters may occur in the future. Costs of legal services associated with the foregoing matters are recognized in earnings as services are provided.

CONTINGENCIES

In fiscal 1991, we acquired Beatrice Company ("Beatrice"). As a result of the acquisition 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. These include various litigation and environmental proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to its acquisition by us. The litigation includes suits against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products and the Company as alleged successors to W. P. Fuller Co., a lead paint and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by Beatrice 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 in the form of medical monitoring for elevated levels of lead in blood. In California, a number of cities and counties have joined in a consolidated action seeking abatement of the alleged public nuisance.

The environmental proceedings include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's status as a potentially responsible party at 36 Superfund, proposed Superfund, or state-equivalent 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. Beatrice has paid or is in the process of paying its liability share at 32 of these sites. Reserves for these matters 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 reserves for Beatrice-related environmental matters totaled $63.3 million as of May 26, 2013, a majority of which relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites referenced above. We expect expenditures for Beatrice-related environmental matters to continue for up to 18 years.

In limited situations, we will guarantee an obligation of an unconsolidated entity. At the time in which we initially provide such a guarantee, we assess the risk of financial exposure to us under these agreements. We consider the credit-worthiness of the guaranteed party, the value of any collateral pledged against the related obligation, and any other factors that may mitigate our risk. We actively monitor market and entity-specific conditions that may result in a change of our assessment of the risk of loss under these agreements.

We guarantee certain leases and other commercial obligations resulting from the 2002 divestiture of our fresh beef and pork operations. The remaining terms of these arrangements do not exceed 3 years and the maximum amount of future payments we have guaranteed was $8.1 million as of May 26, 2013.

We also guaranteed the performance of the divested fresh beef and pork business with respect to a hog purchase contract that required the divested business to purchase a minimum of approximately 1.2 million hogs annually through June 1, 2013, and accordingly our guarantee of the hog purchase contract terminated during the first quarter of fiscal 2014. The contract stipulated minimum price commitments, based in part on market prices, and, in certain circumstances, also included price adjustments based on certain inputs. We did not establish a liability for any of the fresh beef and pork divestiture-related guarantees, as we have determined that the likelihood of our required performance under the guarantees is remote.

We are a party to various potato supply agreements. Under the terms of certain such potato supply agreements, we have guaranteed repayment of short-term bank loans of the potato suppliers, under certain conditions. At May 26, 2013, the amount of supplier loans we have effectively guaranteed was $40.1 million. We have not established a liability for these guarantees, as we have determined that the likelihood of our required performance under the guarantees is remote.

We were a party to a supply agreement with an onion processing company where we had guaranteed, under certain conditions, repayment of a secured loan (the "Secured Loan") of this onion supplier to the onion supplier's lender. The amount of our guarantee was $25.0 million. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, we received notice from the lender that the onion supplier had defaulted on the Secured Loan and we exercised our option to purchase the Secured Loan from the lender for $40.8 million, thereby assuming first-priority secured rights to the underlying collateral for the amount of the Secured Loan, and cancelling our guarantee. The onion supplier filed for bankruptcy on April 12, 2012 (during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012). The Secured Loan was classified as other assets at the end of fiscal 2012. During the second quarter of fiscal 2013, we acquired ownership and all rights to the collateral, consisting of agricultural land and a processing facility, securing the Secured Loan through the bankruptcy proceeding. During the third quarter of fiscal 2013, we recognized an impairment charge of $10.2 million in our Commercial Foods segment to reduce the carrying amount of the collateral to its estimated fair value based upon updated appraisals. Based on our estimate of the value of the land and processing facility, we expect to recover the remaining carrying value through our operation or sale of these assets.

Federal income tax credits were generated related to our sweet potato production facility in Delhi, Louisiana. Third parties invested in certain of these income tax credits. We have guaranteed these third parties the face value of these income tax credits over their statutory lives, through fiscal 2017, in the event that the income tax credits are recaptured or reduced. The face value of the income tax credits was $21.2 million as of May 26, 2013. We believe the likelihood of the recapture or reduction of the income tax credits is remote, and therefore we have not established a liability in connection with this guarantee.

We are a party to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of the operation of our business. Among these, there are lawsuits, claims, and matters related to the February 2007 recall of our peanut butter products. Among the matters during fiscal 2013 related to the peanut butter recall are litigation we initiated against an insurance carrier to recover our settlement expenditures and defense costs, and an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Georgia and the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice. During the first quarter of fiscal 2013 and during fiscal 2012, we recognized charges of $7.5 million and $17.5 million, respectively, in connection with the U.S. Attorney's office investigation. These amounts are in addition to a charge of $24.8 million we recognized during fiscal 2009 in connection with the insurance coverage dispute. During fiscal 2011, we received a favorable opinion in the insurance matter related to our defense costs, pursuant to which we received a total of $13.2 million, $11.8 million of which was recognized in income in fiscal 2012, and $1.4 million in fiscal 2013. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, a jury verdict was rendered in our favor in the amount of $25.0 million on the claim for disputed coverage, which was subject to appeal and not recognized in income in fiscal 2012. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, we reached a settlement on the insurance dispute, pursuant to which we were paid $25.0 million, in addition to retaining the defense costs previously reimbursed to us. We recognized the $25.0 million in income as a reduction to selling, general and administrative expenses during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013. With respect to the U.S. Attorney matter, in fiscal 2011, we received formal requests from the U.S. Attorney's office in Georgia seeking a variety of records and information related to the operations of our peanut butter manufacturing facility in Sylvester, Georgia. These requests continue and are related to the previously disclosed June 2007 execution of a search warrant at our facility following the February 2007 recall. We continue to engage in discussions with officials in regard to the investigation.

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. On June 13, 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., 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. In the first quarter of fiscal 2012, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment and dismissed the suit without prejudice on the basis that the suit was filed prematurely. We will continue to defend this action vigorously. Any exposure in this case is expected to be limited to the applicable insurance deductible.

In April 2010, an accidental explosion occurred at our flour milling facility in Chester, Illinois. Two employees of a subcontractor and one employee of the primary contractor, Westside Salvage ("Westside"), on the site at the time of the accident suffered injuries in the accident. Suit was initiated against Westside and the Company for personal injury claims. During the first quarter of fiscal 2013, a jury in Federal Court sitting in East St. Louis, Illinois, returned a verdict against the Company and Westside and in favor of the three employees. The verdict was in the amount of $77.5 million in compensatory damages apportioned between the Company and Westside and $100.0 million in punitive damages against the Company. We filed post-trial motions and the Court reduced the punitive award against the Company to one employee by approximately $7 million. While we have insurance policies in place that we believe will cover the full amount of the compensatory and punitive damages apportioned to us (other than a $3 million deductible that we accrued in a prior period), we filed an appeal with the Seventh Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on the verdict and the damages in the third quarter of fiscal 2013. Any exposure in this case is expected to be limited to the applicable insurance deductible.

During fiscal 2012, we were a party to several lawsuits concerning the use of diacetyl, a butter flavoring ingredient that was added to our microwave popcorn until late 2007. The cases were primarily consumer personal injury suits claiming respiratory illness allegedly due to exposures to vapors from microwaving popcorn. We received favorable outcomes in connection with some of these cases and settled the remaining pending cases in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. As of the date of this report, we did not have any pending lawsuits related to the use of diacetyl.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2013, we were named a defendant in several shareholder derivative class action lawsuits brought in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis against directors of Ralcorp alleging breaches of fiduciary obligations by them in connection with their approval of the Acquisition. We were alleged to be an aider and abettor of those breaches. The suits sought injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, and other relief. There were other cases pending in the same Court, which were consolidated and made similar allegations against directors of Ralcorp to which we were not named a defendant. All of these cases were settled during the third quarter of fiscal 2013 for immaterial amounts. The settlement of these lawsuits is subject to final Court approval.

Prior to our ownership of Ralcorp, a lawsuit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Frito-Lay North America, Inc. against Ralcorp and Medallion Foods, Inc., a subsidiary of Ralcorp, alleging that certain products manufactured by Medallion infringed Frito-Lays' patents and trademarks and misappropriated trade secrets. After a jury trial during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, jurors delivered a verdict in favor of Medallion and Ralcorp on all claims. Frito-Lay has filed a motion for a new trial. We will continue to defend this action vigorously.

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 in one of the estimates of the foregoing matters may occur in the future. Costs of legal services associated with the foregoing matters are recognized in earnings as services are provided.