Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Obligations Related to Divested Operations — We have divested certain businesses in recent years. In each case, we have retained certain known contingent obligations related to those businesses and/or assumed an obligation to indemnify the purchasers of the businesses for certain unknown contingent liabilities, including environmental liabilities. We believe that we have established adequate reserves, which are immaterial to the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, for potential liabilities and indemnifications related to our divested businesses. Moreover, we do not expect any liability that we may have for these retained liabilities, or any indemnification liability, to materially exceed amounts accrued. Contingent Obligations Related to Milk Supply Arrangements — In 2001, in connection with our acquisition of Legacy Dean, we purchased Dairy Farmers of America’s (“DFA”) 33.8% interest in our operations. In connection with that transaction, we issued a contingent, subordinated promissory note to DFA in the original principal amount of $40 million. The promissory note has a 20-year term and bears interest based on the consumer price index. Interest will not be paid in cash but will be added to the principal amount of the note annually, up to a maximum principal amount of $96 million. We may prepay the note in whole or in part at any time, without penalty. The note will become payable only if we materially breach or terminate one of our related milk supply agreements with DFA without renewal or replacement. Otherwise, the note will expire in 2021, without any obligation to pay any portion of the principal or interest. Payments made under the note, if any, would be expensed as incurred. We have not terminated, and we have not materially breached, any of our milk supply agreements with DFA related to the promissory note. We have previously terminated unrelated supply agreements with respect to several plants that were supplied by DFA. In connection with our goals of cost control and supply chain efficiency, we continue to evaluate our sources of raw milk supply. Insurance — We use a combination of insurance and self-insurance for a number of risks, including property, workers’ compensation, general liability, automobile liability, product liability and employee health care utilizing high deductibles. Deductibles vary due to insurance market conditions and risk. Liabilities associated with these risks are estimated considering historical claims experience and other actuarial assumptions. Based on current information, we believe that we have established adequate reserves to cover these claims. Lease and Purchase Obligations — We lease certain property, plant and equipment used in our operations under both capital and operating lease agreements. Such leases, which are primarily for machinery, equipment and vehicles, have lease terms ranging from one to 20 years. Certain of the operating lease agreements require the payment of additional rentals for maintenance, along with additional rentals based on miles driven or units produced. Certain leases require us to guarantee a minimum value of the leased asset at the end of the lease. Our maximum exposure under those guarantees is not a material amount. We have entered into various contracts, in the normal course of business, obligating us to purchase minimum quantities of raw materials used in our production and distribution processes, including conventional raw milk, diesel fuel, sugar and other ingredients that are inputs into our finished products. We enter into these contracts from time to time to ensure a sufficient supply of raw ingredients. In addition, we have contractual obligations to purchase various services that are part of our production process. Litigation, Investigations and Audits Tennessee Retailer and Indirect Purchaser Actions A putative class action antitrust complaint (the “retailer action”) was filed against Dean Foods and other milk processors on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers. Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants’ conduct artificially inflated wholesale prices paid by direct milk purchasers. In March 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, including the Company, as to all counts then remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision, and in January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to one of the five original counts in the Tennessee retailer action. Following the Sixth Circuit’s denial of our request to reconsider the case en banc, the Company petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review. On November 17, 2014, the Supreme Court denied our petition and the case returned to the district court. On January 19, 2016, the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on claims accruing after May 8, 2009. On January 25, 2016, the district court denied summary judgment in other respects and denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court’s order denying class certification. That petition was denied on June 14, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the district court issued an order holding that the case will be judged under an antitrust legal doctrine known as the rule of reason. The case is presently scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017. At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the outcome of the matter. On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the “indirect purchaser action”). This case was voluntarily dismissed, and the same plaintiffs filed a nearly identical complaint on January 17, 2013. The allegations in this complaint were similar to those in both the retailer action and the 2009 indirect purchaser action, but involved only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on September 11, 2014, the district court granted in part and denied in part that motion, dismissing the non-Tennessee plaintiffs’ claims. The Company filed its answer to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014. On March 16, 2016, the court granted a joint motion to stay the indirect purchaser action pending the Sixth Circuit’s decision on the pending class certification review petition in the retailer action. On July 11, 2016, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the indirect purchaser action; the stipulation does not address whether the right of plaintiffs to file a new complaint has been waived or lost. At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the outcome of this matter. In addition to the pending legal proceedings set forth above, we are party from time to time to certain claims, litigations, audits and investigations. Potential liabilities associated with these other matters are not expected to have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Contingent Obligations Related to Divested Operations — We have divested certain businesses in recent years. In each case, we have retained certain known contingent obligations related to those businesses and/or assumed an obligation to indemnify the purchasers of the businesses for certain unknown contingent liabilities, including environmental liabilities. We believe that we have established adequate reserves, which are immaterial to the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, for potential liabilities and indemnifications related to our divested businesses. Moreover, we do not expect any liability that we may have for these retained liabilities, or any indemnification liability, to materially exceed amounts accrued.

Contingent Obligations Related to Milk Supply Arrangements — In 2001, in connection with our acquisition of Legacy Dean, we purchased Dairy Farmers of America’s (“DFA”) 33.8% interest in our operations. In connection with that transaction, we issued a contingent, subordinated promissory note to DFA in the original principal amount of $40 million. The promissory note has a 20-year term and bears interest based on the consumer price index. Interest will not be paid in cash but will be added to the principal amount of the note annually, up to a maximum principal amount of $96 million. We may prepay the note in whole or in part at any time, without penalty. The note will become payable only if we materially breach or terminate one of our related milk supply agreements with DFA without renewal or replacement. Otherwise, the note will expire in 2021, without any obligation to pay any portion of the principal or interest. Payments made under the note, if any, would be expensed as incurred. We have not terminated, and we have not materially breached, any of our milk supply agreements with DFA related to the promissory note. We have previously terminated unrelated supply agreements with respect to several plants that were supplied by DFA. In connection with our goals of cost control and supply chain efficiency, we continue to evaluate our sources of raw milk supply.

Insurance — We use a combination of insurance and self-insurance for a number of risks, including property, workers’ compensation, general liability, automobile liability, product liability and employee health care utilizing high deductibles. Deductibles vary due to insurance market conditions and risk. Liabilities associated with these risks are estimated considering historical claims experience and other actuarial assumptions. Based on current information, we believe that we have established adequate reserves to cover these claims.

Lease and Purchase Obligations — We lease certain property, plant and equipment used in our operations under both capital and operating lease agreements. Such leases, which are primarily for machinery, equipment and vehicles, have lease terms ranging from one to 20 years. Certain of the operating lease agreements require the payment of additional rentals for maintenance, along with additional rentals based on miles driven or units produced. Certain leases require us to guarantee a minimum value of the leased asset at the end of the lease. Our maximum exposure under those guarantees is not a material amount.

We have entered into various contracts, in the normal course of business, obligating us to purchase minimum quantities of raw materials used in our production and distribution processes, including conventional raw milk, diesel fuel, sugar and other ingredients that are inputs into our finished products. We enter into these contracts from time to time to ensure a sufficient supply of raw ingredients. In addition, we have contractual obligations to purchase various services that are part of our production process.

Litigation, Investigations and Audits

Tennessee Retailer and Indirect Purchaser Actions

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the “retailer action”) was filed against Dean Foods and other milk processors on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers. Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants’ conduct artificially inflated wholesale prices paid by direct milk purchasers. In March 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, including the Company, as to all counts then remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision, and in January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to one of the five original counts in the Tennessee retailer action. Following the Sixth Circuit’s denial of our request to reconsider the case en banc, the Company petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review. On November 17, 2014, the Supreme Court denied our petition and the case returned to the district court. On January 19, 2016, the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on claims accruing after May 8, 2009. On January 25, 2016, the district court denied summary judgment in other respects and denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court’s order denying class certification. That petition was denied on June 14, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the district court issued an order holding that the case will be judged under an antitrust legal doctrine known as the rule of reason. The case is presently scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017. At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the outcome of the matter.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the “indirect purchaser action”). This case was voluntarily dismissed, and the same plaintiffs filed a nearly identical complaint on January 17, 2013. The allegations in this complaint were similar to those in both the retailer action and the 2009 indirect purchaser action, but involved only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on September 11, 2014, the district court granted in part and denied in part that motion, dismissing the non-Tennessee plaintiffs’ claims. The Company filed its answer to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014. On March 16, 2016, the court granted a joint motion to stay the indirect purchaser action pending the Sixth Circuit’s decision on the pending class certification review petition in the retailer action. On July 11, 2016, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the indirect purchaser action; the stipulation does not address whether the right of plaintiffs to file a new complaint has been waived or lost. At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the outcome of this matter.

In addition to the pending legal proceedings set forth above, we are party from time to time to certain claims, litigations, audits and investigations. Potential liabilities associated with these other matters are not expected to have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.