Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 28, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies DBCP Litigation Beginning in December 1993, certain of our U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane (“DBCP”) during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against our U.S. subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii, Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines. In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of our U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to Hawaii. At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of our remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred. A final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On March 27, 2014, the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On October 14, 2004, two of our subsidiaries were served with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than 2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to DBCP. On January 2, 2009, three of our subsidiaries were served with multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge Acosta Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents. An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas and may have participated in the settlement of those actions. On June 27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329 plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30, 2008, our subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of the remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of Costa Rica. On September 22, 2009, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on November 16, 2009 entered an order conditionally dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with our subsidiaries. Those dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in Costa Rica on May 17, 2012. On January 18, 2013, all remaining plaintiffs in California filed Requests for Dismissal effecting the dismissal of their claims without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, our subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts of Costa Rica. In February 2011, a group of former banana cooperative workers from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Philippines against two of our subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to DBCP. The trial court dismissed the complaint against our subsidiaries on October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals, which appeal is pending. In August 2011, approximately 2,500 banana workers from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, captioned Macasa, et al. v. Dole Food Co. Inc., et al., against one of our subsidiaries again claiming injury from DBCP exposure. On February 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding approximately 500 more claimants to the action. Based upon an initial review, it appears that all of the plaintiffs in this action were claimants in a prior DBCP action in the Philippines that was dismissed in 2002 and that the claims of such plaintiffs are prone to being barred by limitations. A demurrer on limitations grounds was filed on April 24, 2012 and joined in by our subsidiary. That motion was granted on August 7, 2012 and the court entered judgment against the plaintiffs dismissing the action with prejudice on September 25, 2012. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeals. On March 27, 2014, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. 10. Commitments and Contingencies (continued) On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one of our subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. We and our subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include claimants who had cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed on September 17, 2012. On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29, 2013. On September 21, 2012, our subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On January 16, 2013, our subsidiary joined a motion for summary judgment on limitations grounds against approximately 2,400 of the 2,800 plaintiffs whose claims it answered. On September 19, 2013, the court denied the motion. Our subsidiary plans to join a new motion for summary judgment based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal of related cases by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. European Union Antitrust Investigation On June 2, 2005, one of our German subsidiaries was visited by the European Commission, the antitrust authority of the European Union (“EU”) as part of its investigation of certain of our overseas subsidiaries as well as other produce companies for possible violations of the EU’s competition laws. Our subsidiaries cooperated with the investigation. On October 17, 2008, the European Commission concluded its investigation without finding any infringement of EU competition rules by, or imposing any fines on, our subsidiaries. The European Commission did, however, find that Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co KG (“Weichert”), an entity in which one of our subsidiaries formerly held an indirect 80% noncontrolling interest, infringed EU competition rules and imposed upon it a €14.7 million ($20.2 million using exchange rates as of March 28, 2014) fine. The European Commission has asserted that we controlled Weichert during the period by virtue of our subsidiary’s former, indirect noncontrolling interest and has therefore held that we are jointly and severally liable for Weichert’s payment of the fine. On December 31, 2008, we filed an appeal of this determination on grounds, among others, that Weichert did not violate EU competition rules and that, in any event, we cannot be held jointly and severally liable for Weichert’s acts under applicable EU law. On April 14, 2010, Weichert filed a statement of intervention in support of our appeal seeking annulment of the European Commission’s determination. A hearing was held on February 1, 2012 for oral argument on the appeal. On March 14, 2013, the ruling on the appeal was issued reducing the fine from €14.7 million to €8.8 million ($12.1 million using exchange rates as of March 28, 2014) but upholding the European Commission's decision holding us jointly and severally liable for Weichert's payment of the fine. On May 24, 2013, we filed an appeal against this decision re-asserting that we cannot be held jointly and severally liable for Weichert's acts under EU law. On June 4, 2013, the European Commission filed an appeal challenging only an approximate €1.0 million ($1.4 million using exchange rates as of March 28, 2014) portion of the lower court's fine reduction and thereby seeking that the fine be set at €9.8 million ($13.5 million using exchange rates as of March 28, 2014) rather than €8.8 million. In its appeal, the European Commission also disputed the grounds upon which we based our appeal. We filed our response to the European Commission's appeal on July 1, 2013. The European Commission filed its response to our appeal on August 5, 2013. Weichert filed responses to our appeal and the European Commission’s appeal as well as a cross-appeal on August 8, 2013. We filed a reply to the European Commission’s response to our appeal on October 17, 2013. 10. Commitments and Contingencies (continued) Unpaid Wages Class Action Litigation In December 2007, a class action complaint was filed against one of our subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an action styled Maria Delgado and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon. On October 5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our subsidiary. The court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs consistent with the jury verdict. On January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments. Our subsidiary is appealing the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme Court and has accrued $2.2 million in reserve pending the outcome of the appeal. Kunia Well Site In 1980, elevated levels of certain chemicals were detected in the soil and ground-water at a plantation leased by one of our U.S. subsidiaries in Honolulu, Hawaii (the “Kunia Well Site”). Shortly thereafter, our subsidiary discontinued the use of the Kunia Well Site and provided an alternate water source to area well users and the subsidiary commenced its own voluntary cleanup operation. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) identified the Kunia Well Site for potential listing on the National Priorities List (“NPL”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. On December 16, 1994, the EPA issued a final rule adding the Kunia Well Site to the NPL. On September 28, 1995, our subsidiary entered into an order (the “Order”) with the EPA to conduct the remedial investigation and the feasibility study of the Kunia Well Site. Under the terms of the Order, our subsidiary submitted a remedial investigation report in November 1998 and a final draft feasibility study in December 1999 (which was updated from time to time) for review by the EPA. The EPA approved the remedial investigation report in February 1999 and the feasibility study on April 22, 2003. As a result of communications with the EPA in 2001, we recorded a charge of $15.0 million in the third quarter of 2001 to increase the recorded liability to the estimated expected future cleanup cost for the Kunia Well Site to $19.1 million. Based on conversations with the EPA in the third quarter of 2002 and consultation with our legal counsel and other experts, we recorded a charge of $7.0 million during the third quarter of 2002 to increase the accrual for the expected future clean-up costs for the Kunia Well Site to $26.1 million. On September 25, 2003, the EPA issued the Record of Decision (“ROD”). The EPA estimates in the ROD that the remediation costs associated with the cleanup of the Kunia Well Site will range from $12.9 million to $25.4 million and will last approximately 10 years. It remains to be determined how long the remediation will actually last. The undiscounted estimates are between $14.8 million and $28.7 million. The undiscounted estimate on which our accrual is based totals $16.7 million and is discounted using a 3.0% rate. As of March 28, 2014, there is $15.3 million included in other noncurrent liabilities and $1.1 million included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the Kunia Well Site clean-up, which we expect to expend in the next 12 months. We expect to expend approximately $1.0 million in cash per year for the following five years. Certain portions of the EPA’s estimates have been discounted using a 3.0% interest rate. 10. Commitments and Contingencies (continued) On January 13, 2004, the EPA deleted a portion of the Kunia Well Site (Northeast section) from the NPL. On May 2, 2005, our subsidiary signed a Consent Decree with the EPA for the performance of the clean-up work for the Kunia Well Site. On September 27, 2005, the U.S. District Court for Hawaii approved and entered the Consent Decree. Based on findings from remedial investigations at the Kunia Well Site, our subsidiary continues to evaluate with the EPA the clean-up work currently in progress in accordance with the Consent Decree. Additional Information In addition to the foregoing, we are involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions incident to our operations, both as plaintiff and defendant. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, none of these other claims are currently expected to have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or our cash flows. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in all of the above matters.

Commitments and Contingencies

DBCP Litigation

Beginning in December 1993, certain of our U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane (“DBCP”) during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against our U.S. subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii, Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines.

In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of our U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to Hawaii. At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of our remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred. A final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On March 27, 2014, the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

On October 14, 2004, two of our subsidiaries were served with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than 2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to DBCP. On January 2, 2009, three of our subsidiaries were served with multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge Acosta Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents. An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas and may have participated in the settlement of those actions. On June 27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329 plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30, 2008, our subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of the remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of Costa Rica. On September 22, 2009, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on November 16, 2009 entered an order conditionally dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with our subsidiaries. Those dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in Costa Rica on May 17, 2012. On January 18, 2013, all remaining plaintiffs in California filed Requests for Dismissal effecting the dismissal of their claims without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, our subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts of Costa Rica.

In February 2011, a group of former banana cooperative workers from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Philippines against two of our subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to DBCP. The trial court dismissed the complaint against our subsidiaries on October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals, which appeal is pending.

In August 2011, approximately 2,500 banana workers from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, captioned Macasa, et al. v. Dole Food Co. Inc., et al., against one of our subsidiaries again claiming injury from DBCP exposure. On February 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding approximately 500 more claimants to the action. Based upon an initial review, it appears that all of the plaintiffs in this action were claimants in a prior DBCP action in the Philippines that was dismissed in 2002 and that the claims of such plaintiffs are prone to being barred by limitations. A demurrer on limitations grounds was filed on April 24, 2012 and joined in by our subsidiary. That motion was granted on August 7, 2012 and the court entered judgment against the plaintiffs dismissing the action with prejudice on September 25, 2012. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeals. On March 27, 2014, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

10. Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one of our subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. We and our subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include claimants who had cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed on September 17, 2012. On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29, 2013. On September 21, 2012, our subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On January 16, 2013, our subsidiary joined a motion for summary judgment on limitations grounds against approximately 2,400 of the 2,800 plaintiffs whose claims it answered. On September 19, 2013, the court denied the motion. Our subsidiary plans to join a new motion for summary judgment based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal of related cases by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

European Union Antitrust Investigation

On June 2, 2005, one of our German subsidiaries was visited by the European Commission, the antitrust authority of the European Union (“EU”) as part of its investigation of certain of our overseas subsidiaries as well as other produce companies for possible violations of the EU’s competition laws. Our subsidiaries cooperated with the investigation. On October 17, 2008, the European Commission concluded its investigation without finding any infringement of EU competition rules by, or imposing any fines on, our subsidiaries.

The European Commission did, however, find that Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co KG (“Weichert”), an entity in which one of our subsidiaries formerly held an indirect 80% noncontrolling interest, infringed EU competition rules and imposed upon it a €14.7 million ($20.2 million using exchange rates as of March 28, 2014) fine. The European Commission has asserted that we controlled Weichert during the period by virtue of our subsidiary’s former, indirect noncontrolling interest and has therefore held that we are jointly and severally liable for Weichert’s payment of the fine.

On December 31, 2008, we filed an appeal of this determination on grounds, among others, that Weichert did not violate EU competition rules and that, in any event, we cannot be held jointly and severally liable for Weichert’s acts under applicable EU law. On April 14, 2010, Weichert filed a statement of intervention in support of our appeal seeking annulment of the European Commission’s determination. A hearing was held on February 1, 2012 for oral argument on the appeal. On March 14, 2013, the ruling on the appeal was issued reducing the fine from €14.7 million to €8.8 million ($12.1 million using exchange rates as of March 28, 2014) but upholding the European Commission's decision holding us jointly and severally liable for Weichert's payment of the fine.

On May 24, 2013, we filed an appeal against this decision re-asserting that we cannot be held jointly and severally liable for Weichert's acts under EU law. On June 4, 2013, the European Commission filed an appeal challenging only an approximate €1.0 million ($1.4 million using exchange rates as of March 28, 2014) portion of the lower court's fine reduction and thereby seeking that the fine be set at €9.8 million ($13.5 million using exchange rates as of March 28, 2014) rather than €8.8 million. In its appeal, the European Commission also disputed the grounds upon which we based our appeal. We filed our response to the European Commission's appeal on July 1, 2013. The European Commission filed its response to our appeal on August 5, 2013. Weichert filed responses to our appeal and the European Commission’s appeal as well as a cross-appeal on August 8, 2013. We filed a reply to the European Commission’s response to our appeal on October 17, 2013.

10. Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

Unpaid Wages Class Action Litigation

In December 2007, a class action complaint was filed against one of our subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an action styled Maria Delgado and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon. On October 5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our subsidiary. The court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs consistent with the jury verdict. On January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments. Our subsidiary is appealing the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme Court and has accrued $2.2 million in reserve pending the outcome of the appeal.

Kunia Well Site

In 1980, elevated levels of certain chemicals were detected in the soil and ground-water at a plantation leased by one of our U.S. subsidiaries in Honolulu, Hawaii (the “Kunia Well Site”). Shortly thereafter, our subsidiary discontinued the use of the Kunia Well Site and provided an alternate water source to area well users and the subsidiary commenced its own voluntary cleanup operation.

In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) identified the Kunia Well Site for potential listing on the National Priorities List (“NPL”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. On December 16, 1994, the EPA issued a final rule adding the Kunia Well Site to the NPL.

On September 28, 1995, our subsidiary entered into an order (the “Order”) with the EPA to conduct the remedial investigation and the feasibility study of the Kunia Well Site. Under the terms of the Order, our subsidiary submitted a remedial investigation report in November 1998 and a final draft feasibility study in December 1999 (which was updated from time to time) for review by the EPA. The EPA approved the remedial investigation report in February 1999 and the feasibility study on April 22, 2003.

As a result of communications with the EPA in 2001, we recorded a charge of $15.0 million in the third quarter of 2001 to increase the recorded liability to the estimated expected future cleanup cost for the Kunia Well Site to $19.1 million. Based on conversations with the EPA in the third quarter of 2002 and consultation with our legal counsel and other experts, we recorded a charge of $7.0 million during the third quarter of 2002 to increase the accrual for the expected future clean-up costs for the Kunia Well Site to $26.1 million.

On September 25, 2003, the EPA issued the Record of Decision (“ROD”). The EPA estimates in the ROD that the remediation costs associated with the cleanup of the Kunia Well Site will range from $12.9 million to $25.4 million and will last approximately 10 years. It remains to be determined how long the remediation will actually last.

The undiscounted estimates are between $14.8 million and $28.7 million. The undiscounted estimate on which our accrual is based totals $16.7 million and is discounted using a 3.0% rate. As of March 28, 2014, there is $15.3 million included in other noncurrent liabilities and $1.1 million included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the Kunia Well Site clean-up, which we expect to expend in the next 12 months. We expect to expend approximately $1.0 million in cash per year for the following five years. Certain portions of the EPA’s estimates have been discounted using a 3.0% interest rate.

10. Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

On January 13, 2004, the EPA deleted a portion of the Kunia Well Site (Northeast section) from the NPL. On May 2, 2005, our subsidiary signed a Consent Decree with the EPA for the performance of the clean-up work for the Kunia Well Site. On September 27, 2005, the U.S. District Court for Hawaii approved and entered the Consent Decree. Based on findings from remedial investigations at the Kunia Well Site, our subsidiary continues to evaluate with the EPA the clean-up work currently in progress in accordance with the Consent Decree.

Additional Information

In addition to the foregoing, we are involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions incident to our operations, both as plaintiff and defendant. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, none of these other claims are currently expected to have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or our cash flows.

We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in all of the above matters.