CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Feb. 26, 2017
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. 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 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 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 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 to 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 extent of insurance coverage is uncertain, and the Company cannot absolutely 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 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 (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. Beatrice has paid or is in the process of paying its liability share at 33 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 February 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 Wells G&H-Southwest Properties Superfund site, which is one of the Beatrice sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) has indicated that it will issue a Record of Decision for this site shortly and subsequently enter into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to determine a final Remedial Design/Remedial Action plan for the site. While we believe that it is unlikely, it is reasonably possible that the EPA’s decision and negotiations may result in material liability, but we are, at this time, unable to estimate a range of potential outcomes. We are a party to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of our ongoing business operations. These previously included lawsuits, claims, and other proceedings related to the February 2007 recall of our peanut butter products, including an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Georgia and the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice. In May 2015, we negotiated a resolution of this matter, which resulted in an executed plea agreement. On December 13, 2016, ConAgra Grocery Products pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia accepted the plea and imposed the agreed sentence pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. ConAgra Grocery Products has now made payments totaling $11.2 million to the federal government, and the matter has been concluded. Expenses related to this payment were accrued in previous periods. 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. 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. 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 February 26, 2017, the amount of this guarantee, recorded in other noncurrent liabilities, was $30.1 million. Federal income tax credits were generated in connection with Lamb Weston’s 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 26, 2017. We believe the likelihood of recapture or reduction of the income tax credits is remote. We lease certain office buildings from entities that we have determined to be variable interest entities. The lease agreements contain put options, which are 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 that 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 estimated 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 February 26, 2017, the estimated amount by which the put prices exceeded the fair values of the related properties was $51.8 million, of which we have accrued $7.4 million. As these buildings are worth considerably more when under lease agreements than when vacant, we may be able to mitigate some, or all, of the related financial exposure created by the put options by maintaining active lease agreements and/or by subleasing the buildings to creditworthy tenants. We do not expect to ultimately incur material financial losses as a result of the potential exercise of the lease put options by the lessors. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, one of these lease agreements expired. As a result of this expiration, we reversed the applicable accrual and recognized a benefit of $6.7 million. 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

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. 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 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 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 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 to 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 extent of insurance coverage is uncertain, and the Company cannot absolutely 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 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 (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. Beatrice has paid or is in the process of paying its liability share at 33 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 February 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 Wells G&H-Southwest Properties Superfund site, which is one of the Beatrice sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) has indicated that it will issue a Record of Decision for this site shortly and subsequently enter into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to determine a final Remedial Design/Remedial Action plan for the site. While we believe that it is unlikely, it is reasonably possible that the EPA’s decision and negotiations may result in material liability, but we are, at this time, unable to estimate a range of potential outcomes.

We are a party to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of our ongoing business operations. These previously included lawsuits, claims, and other proceedings related to the February 2007 recall of our peanut butter products, including an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Georgia and the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice. In May 2015, we negotiated a resolution of this matter, which resulted in an executed plea agreement. On December 13, 2016, ConAgra Grocery Products pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia accepted the plea and imposed the agreed sentence pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. ConAgra Grocery Products has now made payments totaling $11.2 million to the federal government, and the matter has been concluded. Expenses related to this payment were accrued in previous periods.

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. 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. 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 February 26, 2017, the amount of this guarantee, recorded in other noncurrent liabilities, was $30.1 million.

Federal income tax credits were generated in connection with Lamb Weston’s 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 26, 2017. We believe the likelihood of recapture or reduction of the income tax credits is remote.

We lease certain office buildings from entities that we have determined to be variable interest entities. The lease agreements contain put options, which are 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 that 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 estimated 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 February 26, 2017, the estimated amount by which the put prices exceeded the fair values of the related properties was $51.8 million, of which we have accrued $7.4 million. As these buildings are worth considerably more when under lease agreements than when vacant, we may be able to mitigate some, or all, of the related financial exposure created by the put options by maintaining active lease agreements and/or by subleasing the buildings to creditworthy tenants. We do not expect to ultimately incur material financial losses as a result of the potential exercise of the lease put options by the lessors. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, one of these lease agreements expired. As a result of this expiration, we reversed the applicable accrual and recognized a benefit of $6.7 million.

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.