CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Feb. 22, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES In fiscal 1991, we acquired 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. 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 Company, 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 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 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 Judgment (the "Judgment") against ConAgra Grocery Products and two other defendants, which orders the creation of a California abatement fund in the amount of $1.15 billion. Liability is joint and several. The Company believes ConAgra Grocery Products did not inherit any liabilities of W. P. Fuller Co. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in this case and has appealed the Judgment to The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District. The Company expects the appeal process will last several years. The absence of any linkage between ConAgra Grocery Products and W. P. Fuller Co. is a critical issue among others that the Company will continue to advance throughout the appeals process. It is not possible to estimate exposure in this case or 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 Company cannot absolutely assure that the final resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The environmental proceedings associated with Beatrice include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's status as a potentially responsible party at 37 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 33 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 $56.1 million as of February 22, 2015, 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 certain 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 resulting from the 2002 divestiture of our fresh beef and pork operations. The remaining terms of these arrangements are less than a year and the maximum amount of future payments we have guaranteed was $3.4 million as of February 22, 2015. 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 February 22, 2015, the amount of supplier loans we have effectively guaranteed was $9.5 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 $25.0 million secured loan (the "Secured Loan") of this onion products supplier to the supplier's lender. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, we received notice from the lender that the 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 supplier filed for bankruptcy during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 and during the second quarter of fiscal 2013, we acquired ownership and all rights to the underlying collateral, consisting of agricultural land and an onion processing facility. 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 these assets to their estimated fair value based upon updated appraisals. During the second quarter of fiscal 2014, we recognized an additional impairment charge of $8.9 million in our Commercial Foods segment to reduce the carrying amount of the processing facility to its estimated fair value based upon expected sales proceeds. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we sold the land and recognized a gain of $5.1 million in our Commercial Foods segment. In the third quarter of fiscal 2015, we sold the processing facility and recognized an immaterial gain in our Commercial Foods segment. Federal income tax credits were generated related to our sweet potato production facility in Delhi, Louisiana. Third parties invested in these income tax credits. We have guaranteed these third parties the face value of the 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 $26.7 million as of February 22, 2015. 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 these guarantees. We are a party to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of our ongoing business operations. Among these, there are lawsuits, claims, and matters related to the February 2007 recall of our peanut butter products. Among the matters outstanding during fiscal 2015 related to the peanut butter recall is an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Georgia and the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice. 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 relate to the June 2007 execution of a search warrant at our facility following the February 2007 recall. During fiscal 2013 and 2012, we recognized charges of $7.5 million and $17.5 million, respectively, in connection with this matter. We have been and continue to be engaged in ongoing discussions with the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice in regard to the investigation. We are pursuing a negotiated resolution, which we believe will likely involve a misdemeanor criminal disposition under the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we reduced our accrual by $6.7 million. During the first quarter of fiscal 2015, we further reduced our accrual by $5.8 million and further reduced it by $1.2 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2015, based on ongoing discussions with the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice. After taking into account liabilities recorded for these matters, we believe the ultimate resolution of this matter should not have a material adverse effect on our financial conditions, results of operations, or liquidity. In addition to the investigation noted above, we were previously engaged in litigation against an insurance carrier to recover our settlement expenditures and defense costs associated with the peanut butter recall. During fiscal 2009, we recognized a charge of $24.8 million in connection with the insurance coverage dispute. 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 ("SG&A") expenses during fiscal 2013. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we received an additional reimbursement of settlement and defense costs of $3.5 million related to this matter, which was recognized in income as a reduction to SG&A expenses. 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., 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, 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 Engineering Group Inc. refiled its action for indemnity. 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 previously owned 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. 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 contractor 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. Post-trial motions were filed by the Company and the trial court reduced the punitive award by approximately $7 million. 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. The appeal was argued in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 and during the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the Court of Appeals rendered a unanimous decision reversing the judgment against the Company in its entirety. The plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc, which was denied, and petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari, which was denied on February 23, 2015. There are no further appeals available to the plaintiffs against the Company. We are a party to an agreement with a third party wherein we have rights to the use of certain intellectual property designed to assist us in improving the operating efficiency of our manufacturing operations. In connection with this agreement, the Company is required to make yearly payments of $2.5 million to the third party. Beginning in fiscal 2015, the Company will be required to make additional payments to the third party based upon a contractual formula for manufacturing efficiencies achieved in applicable production facilities. Our best estimate of the required payment for fiscal 2015 is $6.1 million. If additional operating efficiencies are attained in future periods, the amount of the payments due to the third party could increase materially. The obligation to make such payments is contingent upon achievement of such operating efficiencies and accordingly, it is not currently possible to determine the ultimate amount of such payments. This agreement requires such contractual payments to occur each year from fiscal 2015 through March of fiscal 2021. 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 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

In fiscal 1991, we acquired 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. 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 Company, 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 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 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 Judgment (the "Judgment") against ConAgra Grocery Products and two other defendants, which orders the creation of a California abatement fund in the amount of $1.15 billion. Liability is joint and several. The Company believes ConAgra Grocery Products did not inherit any liabilities of W. P. Fuller Co. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in this case and has appealed the Judgment to The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District. The Company expects the appeal process will last several years. The absence of any linkage between ConAgra Grocery Products and W. P. Fuller Co. is a critical issue among others that the Company will continue to advance throughout the appeals process. It is not possible to estimate exposure in this case or 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 Company cannot absolutely assure that the final resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

The environmental proceedings associated with Beatrice include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's status as a potentially responsible party at 37 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 33 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 $56.1 million as of February 22, 2015, 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 certain 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 resulting from the 2002 divestiture of our fresh beef and pork operations. The remaining terms of these arrangements are less than a year and the maximum amount of future payments we have guaranteed was $3.4 million as of February 22, 2015.

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 February 22, 2015, the amount of supplier loans we have effectively guaranteed was $9.5 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 $25.0 million secured loan (the "Secured Loan") of this onion products supplier to the supplier's lender. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, we received notice from the lender that the 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 supplier filed for bankruptcy during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 and during the second quarter of fiscal 2013, we acquired ownership and all rights to the underlying collateral, consisting of agricultural land and an onion processing facility. 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 these assets to their estimated fair value based upon updated appraisals. During the second quarter of fiscal 2014, we recognized an additional impairment charge of $8.9 million in our Commercial Foods segment to reduce the carrying amount of the processing facility to its estimated fair value based upon expected sales proceeds. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we sold the land and recognized a gain of $5.1 million in our Commercial Foods segment. In the third quarter of fiscal 2015, we sold the processing facility and recognized an immaterial gain in our Commercial Foods segment.

Federal income tax credits were generated related to our sweet potato production facility in Delhi, Louisiana. Third parties invested in these income tax credits. We have guaranteed these third parties the face value of the 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 $26.7 million as of February 22, 2015. 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 these guarantees.

We are a party to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of our ongoing business operations. Among these, there are lawsuits, claims, and matters related to the February 2007 recall of our peanut butter products. Among the matters outstanding during fiscal 2015 related to the peanut butter recall is an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Georgia and the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice. 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 relate to the June 2007 execution of a search warrant at our facility following the February 2007 recall. During fiscal 2013 and 2012, we recognized charges of $7.5 million and $17.5 million, respectively, in connection with this matter. We have been and continue to be engaged in ongoing discussions with the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice in regard to the investigation. We are pursuing a negotiated resolution, which we believe will likely involve a misdemeanor criminal disposition under the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we reduced our accrual by $6.7 million. During the first quarter of fiscal 2015, we further reduced our accrual by $5.8 million and further reduced it by $1.2 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2015, based on ongoing discussions with the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice. After taking into account liabilities recorded for these matters, we believe the ultimate resolution of this matter should not have a material adverse effect on our financial conditions, results of operations, or liquidity.

In addition to the investigation noted above, we were previously engaged in litigation against an insurance carrier to recover our settlement expenditures and defense costs associated with the peanut butter recall. During fiscal 2009, we recognized a charge of $24.8 million in connection with the insurance coverage dispute. 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 ("SG&A") expenses during fiscal 2013. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we received an additional reimbursement of settlement and defense costs of $3.5 million related to this matter, which was recognized in income as a reduction to SG&A expenses.

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., 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, 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 Engineering Group Inc. refiled its action for indemnity. 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 previously owned 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. 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 contractor 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. Post-trial motions were filed by the Company and the trial court reduced the punitive award by approximately $7 million. 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. The appeal was argued in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 and during the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the Court of Appeals rendered a unanimous decision reversing the judgment against the Company in its entirety. The plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc, which was denied, and petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari, which was denied on February 23, 2015. There are no further appeals available to the plaintiffs against the Company.

We are a party to an agreement with a third party wherein we have rights to the use of certain intellectual property designed to assist us in improving the operating efficiency of our manufacturing operations. In connection with this agreement, the Company is required to make yearly payments of $2.5 million to the third party. Beginning in fiscal 2015, the Company will be required to make additional payments to the third party based upon a contractual formula for manufacturing efficiencies achieved in applicable production facilities. Our best estimate of the required payment for fiscal 2015 is $6.1 million. If additional operating efficiencies are attained in future periods, the amount of the payments due to the third party could increase materially. The obligation to make such payments is contingent upon achievement of such operating efficiencies and accordingly, it is not currently possible to determine the ultimate amount of such payments. This agreement requires such contractual payments to occur each year from fiscal 2015 through March of fiscal 2021.

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 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.