Legal Proceedings, Guarantees, and Commitments	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Guarantees [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings, Guarantees, and Commitments	Legal Proceedings, Guarantees, and Commitments The Company is routinely involved in a number of actual or threatened legal actions, including those involving alleged personal injuries, employment law, product liability, intellectual property, environmental issues, alleged tax liability (see Note 13 for information on income tax matters), and class actions. The Company also routinely receives inquiries from regulators and other government authorities relating to various aspects of our business, and at any given time, the Company has matters at various stages of resolution with the applicable government authorities. The outcomes of these matters are not within our complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, including injunctive relief, that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. In accordance with applicable accounting standards, the Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for material loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a material loss contingency is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed in the notes to the consolidated financial statements. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and governmental proceedings involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in early procedural stages, with incomplete facts or legal discovery; involve unsubstantiated or indeterminate claims for damages; potentially involve penalties, fines, disgorgement, or punitive damages; or could result in a change in business practice. Beginning in 2011, approximately 45 farmers in the U.S. brought suit in a Missouri state court against the Company and one of its employees to recover alleged losses from a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by a third-party grain handler, Cathy Gieseker, who was convicted in 2010 of felony fraud charges and is currently serving time in federal prison. The farmers alleged that the Company knew or should have known of Ms. Gieseker’s Ponzi scheme but did not stop it, that Ms. Gieseker was effectively acting as the Company’s agent, and that the Company defrauded or otherwise wronged them. Attorneys for these farmers claimed to represent more than 100 additional farmers with similar claims. Collectively, all of the farmers sought more than $250 million in alleged economic losses, an unspecified amount for alleged mental pain and suffering, and an unspecified amount of punitive damages. On August 24, 2016, the Company and the farmers entered into a comprehensive confidential settlement of the matter, in which the Company did not admit wrongdoing, and this matter is now at an end. The Company recorded the settlement and related costs and fees pertaining to this matter during 2016. The Company is a party to numerous lawsuits pending in various U.S. state and federal courts arising out of Syngenta Corporation’s (Syngenta) marketing and distribution of genetically modified corn products, Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure Duracade, in the U.S. First, the Company brought a state court action in Louisiana against Syngenta in 2014, alleging that Syngenta was negligent in commercializing its products before the products were approved in China. Second, the Company is a putative class member in a number of purported class actions filed beginning in 2013 by farmers and other parties against Syngenta in federal courts and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, again alleging that Syngenta was negligent in commercializing its products. In the fourth quarter of 2015, Syngenta filed third-party claims against the Company and other grain companies seeking contribution in the event that Syngenta is held liable in these lawsuits; the courts dismissed these third-party claims on April 4, 2016, and the Company is therefore no longer a third-party defendant in the MDL. Third, the Company and other grain companies have been named as a defendant in numerous individual and purported class action suits filed by farmers and other parties in state and federal courts beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, alleging that the Company and other grain companies were negligent in failing to screen for genetically modified corn. On September 6, 2016, the court in the Minnesota state MDL proceedings granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaints against the Company in those actions, and on January 4, 2017, a federal court in the Southern District of Illinois similarly dismissed all of the pending complaints against the Company there. The Company denies liability in all of the actions in which it has been named as a third-party defendant or defendant and is vigorously defending itself in these cases. All of these actions are in pretrial proceedings. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes it will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company has entered into agreements, primarily debt guarantee agreements related to equity-method investees, which could obligate the Company to make future payments if the primary entity fails to perform its contractual obligations. The Company has not recorded a liability for payment of these contingent obligations, as the Company believes the fair value of these contingent obligations is immaterial. The Company has collateral for a portion of these contingent obligations.

Legal Proceedings, Guarantees, and Commitments

The Company is routinely involved in a number of actual or threatened legal actions, including those involving alleged personal injuries, employment law, product liability, intellectual property, environmental issues, alleged tax liability (see Note 13 for information on income tax matters), and class actions. The Company also routinely receives inquiries from regulators and other government authorities relating to various aspects of our business, and at any given time, the Company has matters at various stages of resolution with the applicable government authorities. The outcomes of these matters are not within our complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, including injunctive relief, that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. In accordance with applicable accounting standards, the Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for material loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a material loss contingency is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed in the notes to the consolidated financial statements. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and governmental proceedings involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in early procedural stages, with incomplete facts or legal discovery; involve unsubstantiated or indeterminate claims for damages; potentially involve penalties, fines, disgorgement, or punitive damages; or could result in a change in business practice.

Beginning in 2011, approximately 45 farmers in the U.S. brought suit in a Missouri state court against the Company and one of its employees to recover alleged losses from a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by a third-party grain handler, Cathy Gieseker, who was convicted in 2010 of felony fraud charges and is currently serving time in federal prison. The farmers alleged that the Company knew or should have known of Ms. Gieseker’s Ponzi scheme but did not stop it, that Ms. Gieseker was effectively acting as the Company’s agent, and that the Company defrauded or otherwise wronged them. Attorneys for these farmers claimed to represent more than 100 additional farmers with similar claims. Collectively, all of the farmers sought more than $250 million in alleged economic losses, an unspecified amount for alleged mental pain and suffering, and an unspecified amount of punitive damages. On August 24, 2016, the Company and the farmers entered into a comprehensive confidential settlement of the matter, in which the Company did not admit wrongdoing, and this matter is now at an end. The Company recorded the settlement and related costs and fees pertaining to this matter during 2016.

The Company is a party to numerous lawsuits pending in various U.S. state and federal courts arising out of Syngenta Corporation’s (Syngenta) marketing and distribution of genetically modified corn products, Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure Duracade, in the U.S. First, the Company brought a state court action in Louisiana against Syngenta in 2014, alleging that Syngenta was negligent in commercializing its products before the products were approved in China. Second, the Company is a putative class member in a number of purported class actions filed beginning in 2013 by farmers and other parties against Syngenta in federal courts and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, again alleging that Syngenta was negligent in commercializing its products. In the fourth quarter of 2015, Syngenta filed third-party claims against the Company and other grain companies seeking contribution in the event that Syngenta is held liable in these lawsuits; the courts dismissed these third-party claims on April 4, 2016, and the Company is therefore no longer a third-party defendant in the MDL. Third, the Company and other grain companies have been named as a defendant in numerous individual and purported class action suits filed by farmers and other parties in state and federal courts beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, alleging that the Company and other grain companies were negligent in failing to screen for genetically modified corn. On September 6, 2016, the court in the Minnesota state MDL proceedings granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaints against the Company in those actions, and on January 4, 2017, a federal court in the Southern District of Illinois similarly dismissed all of the pending complaints against the Company there. The Company denies liability in all of the actions in which it has been named as a third-party defendant or defendant and is vigorously defending itself in these cases. All of these actions are in pretrial proceedings. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes it will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company has entered into agreements, primarily debt guarantee agreements related to equity-method investees, which could obligate the Company to make future payments if the primary entity fails to perform its contractual obligations. The Company has not recorded a liability for payment of these contingent obligations, as the Company believes the fair value of these contingent obligations is immaterial. The Company has collateral for a portion of these contingent obligations.