Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 29, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies The Company is conducting a number of environmental investigations and remedial actions at current and former locations of the Company and, along with other companies, has been named a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for certain waste disposal sites. The Company accrues for environmental issues in the accounting period that the Company’s responsibility is established and when the cost can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued $12.0 million and $13.5 million as of June 29, 2014 and December 29, 2013, respectively, which represents management’s estimate of the cost of the remediation of known environmental matters, and does not include any potential liability for related personal injury or property damage claims. This amount is not discounted and does not reflect the recovery of any material amounts through insurance or indemnification arrangements. These cost estimates are subject to a number of variables, including the stage of the environmental investigations, the magnitude of the possible contamination, the nature of the potential remedies, possible joint and several liability, the time period over which remediation may occur, and the possible effects of changing laws and regulations. For sites where the Company has been named a PRP, management does not currently anticipate any additional liability to result from the inability of other significant named parties to contribute. The Company expects that the majority of such accrued amounts could be paid out over a period of up to ten years. As assessment and remediation activities progress at each individual site, these liabilities are reviewed and adjusted to reflect additional information as it becomes available. There have been no environmental problems to date that have had, or are expected to have, a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. While it is possible that a loss exceeding the amounts recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements may be incurred, the potential exposure is not expected to be materially different from those amounts recorded. Enzo Biochem, Inc. and Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “Enzo”) filed a complaint dated October 23, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 02-8448, seeking injunctive and monetary relief against Amersham plc, Amersham BioSciences, PerkinElmer, Inc., PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc., Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, Sigma Chemical Company, Inc., Molecular Probes, Inc., and Orchid BioSciences, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company breached its distributorship and settlement agreements with Enzo, infringed Enzo's patents, engaged in unfair competition and fraud, and committed torts against Enzo by, among other things, engaging in commercial development and exploitation of Enzo's patented products and technology, separately and together with the other defendants. The Company filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging that Enzo's patents are invalid. In 2007, after the court issued a decision in 2006 regarding the construction of the claims in Enzo's patents that effectively limited the coverage of certain of those claims and, the Company believes, excluded certain of the Company's products from the coverage of Enzo's patents, summary judgment motions were filed by the defendants. The case was assigned to a new district court judge in January 2009 and in March 2009, the new judge denied the pending summary judgment motions without prejudice and ordered a stay of the case until the federal appellate court decided Enzo's appeal of the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Enzo Biochem vs. Applera Corp. and Tropix, Inc. (the “Connecticut Case”), which involved a number of the same patents and which could materially affect the scope of Enzo's case against the Company. In March 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the judgment in the Connecticut Case. The district court permitted the Company and the other defendants to jointly file a motion for summary judgment on certain patent and other issues common to all of the defendants. On September 12, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On December 21, 2012, the Company filed a second motion for summary judgment on claims that were not addressed in the first motion, which the court also granted in part and denied in part. The Company expected this case to go to trial in March 2014 and incurred $0.1 million and $3.4 million of expenses in preparation for the trial during the three and six months ended June 29, 2014, respectively. Following a delay in the trial date, the Company subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with Enzo dated June 20, 2014 and in the third quarter of fiscal year 2014 paid $7.0 million into a designated escrow account to resolve this matter, of which $3.7 million had been previously accrued. The Company is also subject to various other claims, legal proceedings and investigations covering a wide range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. Although the Company has established accruals for potential losses that it believes are probable and reasonably estimable, in the opinion of the Company’s management, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving these other contingencies at June 29, 2014 should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. However, each of these matters is subject to uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters may be resolved unfavorably to the Company.

Contingencies

The Company is conducting a number of environmental investigations and remedial actions at current and former locations of the Company and, along with other companies, has been named a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for certain waste disposal sites. The Company accrues for environmental issues in the accounting period that the Company’s responsibility is established and when the cost can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued $12.0 million and $13.5 million as of June 29, 2014 and December 29, 2013, respectively, which represents management’s estimate of the cost of the remediation of known environmental matters, and does not include any potential liability for related personal injury or property damage claims. This amount is not discounted and does not reflect the recovery of any material amounts through insurance or indemnification arrangements. These cost estimates are subject to a number of variables, including the stage of the environmental investigations, the magnitude of the possible contamination, the nature of the potential remedies, possible joint and several liability, the time period over which remediation may occur, and the possible effects of changing laws and regulations. For sites where the Company has been named a PRP, management does not currently anticipate any additional liability to result from the inability of other significant named parties to contribute. The Company expects that the majority of such accrued amounts could be paid out over a period of up to ten years. As assessment and remediation activities progress at each individual site, these liabilities are reviewed and adjusted to reflect additional information as it becomes available. There have been no environmental problems to date that have had, or are expected to have, a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. While it is possible that a loss exceeding the amounts recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements may be incurred, the potential exposure is not expected to be materially different from those amounts recorded.

Enzo Biochem, Inc. and Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “Enzo”) filed a complaint dated October 23, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 02-8448, seeking injunctive and monetary relief against Amersham plc, Amersham BioSciences, PerkinElmer, Inc., PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc., Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, Sigma Chemical Company, Inc., Molecular Probes, Inc., and Orchid BioSciences, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company breached its distributorship and settlement agreements with Enzo, infringed Enzo's patents, engaged in unfair competition and fraud, and committed torts against Enzo by, among other things, engaging in commercial development and exploitation of Enzo's patented products and technology, separately and together with the other defendants. The Company filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging that Enzo's patents are invalid. In 2007, after the court issued a decision in 2006 regarding the construction of the claims in Enzo's patents that effectively limited the coverage of certain of those claims and, the Company believes, excluded certain of the Company's products from the coverage of Enzo's patents, summary judgment motions were filed by the defendants. The case was assigned to a new district court judge in January 2009 and in March 2009, the new judge denied the pending summary judgment motions without prejudice and ordered a stay of the case until the federal appellate court decided Enzo's appeal of the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Enzo Biochem vs. Applera Corp. and Tropix, Inc. (the “Connecticut Case”), which involved a number of the same patents and which could materially affect the scope of Enzo's case against the Company. In March 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the judgment in the Connecticut Case. The district court permitted the Company and the other defendants to jointly file a motion for summary judgment on certain patent and other issues common to all of the defendants. On September 12, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On December 21, 2012, the Company filed a second motion for summary judgment on claims that were not addressed in the first motion, which the court also granted in part and denied in part. The Company expected this case to go to trial in March 2014 and incurred $0.1 million and $3.4 million of expenses in preparation for the trial during the three and six months ended June 29, 2014, respectively. Following a delay in the trial date, the Company subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with Enzo dated June 20, 2014 and in the third quarter of fiscal year 2014 paid $7.0 million into a designated escrow account to resolve this matter, of which $3.7 million had been previously accrued.

The Company is also subject to various other claims, legal proceedings and investigations covering a wide range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. Although the Company has established accruals for potential losses that it believes are probable and reasonably estimable, in the opinion of the Company’s management, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving these other contingencies at June 29, 2014 should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. However, each of these matters is subject to uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters may be resolved unfavorably to the Company.