Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Loss Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	CONTINGENCIES The Company is subject to various legal proceedings, claims, and governmental inspections or investigations in the ordinary course of business covering matters such as general commercial, governmental regulations, antitrust and trade regulations, product liability, environmental, intellectual property, workers’ compensation, employment and other actions. These matters are subject to uncertainty and the outcome is not predictable with assurance. The Company uses a combination of insurance and self-insurance for a number of risks, including workers’ compensation, general liability, automobile liability and product liability. The Company has established accruals for certain matters where losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. There are other claims and legal proceedings pending against the Company for which accruals have not been established. It is reasonably possible that some of these matters could result in an unfavorable judgment against the Company and could require payment of claims in amounts that cannot be estimated at December 31, 2016. Based upon current information, management does not expect any of the claims or legal proceedings pending against the Company to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In connection with the Company’s previous labor negotiations with the union representing the work-force at its Memphis, TN cereal production facility, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act in March 2014. In July 2014, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the Memphis employees were entitled to return to work while the underlying litigation continues and employees subsequently returned to work. In August 2014, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint that initiated the underlying litigation. In May 2015, the NLRB reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in favor of the union. In August 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the NLRB’s order and found that the lockout was lawful. The time to seek review of the Sixth Circuit decision has lapsed and this matter is now closed.

Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2016

CONTINGENCIES

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings, claims, and governmental inspections or investigations in the ordinary course of business covering matters such as general commercial, governmental regulations, antitrust and trade regulations, product liability, environmental, intellectual property, workers’ compensation, employment and other actions. These matters are subject to uncertainty and the outcome is not predictable with assurance. The Company uses a combination of insurance and self-insurance for a number of risks, including workers’ compensation, general liability, automobile liability and product liability.

The Company has established accruals for certain matters where losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. There are other claims and legal proceedings pending against the Company for which accruals have not been established. It is reasonably possible that some of these matters could result in an unfavorable judgment against the Company and could require payment of claims in amounts that cannot be estimated at December 31, 2016. Based upon current information, management does not expect any of the claims or legal proceedings pending against the Company to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In connection with the Company’s previous labor negotiations with the union representing the work-force at its Memphis, TN cereal production facility, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act in March 2014. In July 2014, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the Memphis employees were entitled to return to work while the underlying litigation continues and employees subsequently returned to work. In August 2014, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint that initiated the underlying litigation. In May 2015, the NLRB reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in favor of the union. In August 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the NLRB’s order and found that the lockout was lawful. The time to seek review of the Sixth Circuit decision has lapsed and this matter is now closed.