Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 02, 2016
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies 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. The Company is appealing this decision and the case continues. This litigation is not expected to have a material effect on the production or distribution of products from the Memphis, TN facility or a material financial impact on the Company. As of April 2, 2016, the Company has not recorded a liability related to this matter as an adverse outcome is not considered probable. The Company will continue to evaluate the likelihood of potential outcomes for this case as the litigation continues.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Apr. 02, 2016

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. The Company is appealing this decision and the case continues. This litigation is not expected to have a material effect on the production or distribution of products from the Memphis, TN facility or a material financial impact on the Company. As of April 2, 2016, the Company has not recorded a liability related to this matter as an adverse outcome is not considered probable. The Company will continue to evaluate the likelihood of potential outcomes for this case as the litigation continues.