Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 28, 2013
Contingencies [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES The Company is a party to several lawsuits, claims and loss contingencies arising in the ordinary course of its business, including assertions by certain regulatory and governmental agencies related to permitting requirements and air, wastewater and storm water discharges from the Company's processing facilities. The Company’s workers compensation, auto and general liability policies contain significant deductibles or self-insured retentions. The Company estimates and accrues its expected ultimate claim costs related to accidents occurring during each fiscal year and carries this accrual as a reserve until these claims are paid by the Company. As a result of the matters discussed above, the Company has established loss reserves for insurance, environmental and litigation matters. At December 28, 2013 and December 29, 2012, the reserves for insurance, environmental and litigation contingencies reflected on the balance sheet in accrued expenses and other non-current liabilities were approximately $35.5 million and $37.0 million, respectively. The Company has insurance recovery receivables of approximately $8.8 million and $9.3 million, as of December 28, 2013 and December 29, 2012, respectively, related to these liabilities. The Company's management believes these reserves for contingencies are reasonable and sufficient based upon present governmental regulations and information currently available to management; however, there can be no assurance that final costs related to these matters will not exceed current estimates. The Company believes that the likelihood is remote that any additional liability from these lawsuits and claims that may not be covered by insurance would have a material effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Lower Passaic River Area. The Company has been named as a third party defendant in a lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, styled New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, The Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, as Plaintiffs, vs. Occidental Chemical Corporation, Tierra Solutions, Inc., Maxus Energy Corporation, Repsol YPF, S.A., YPF, S.A., YPF Holdings, Inc., and CLH Holdings, as Defendants (Docket No. L-009868-05) (the “Tierra/Maxus Litigation”). In the Tierra/Maxus Litigation, which was filed on December 13, 2005, the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants past and future cleanup and removal costs, as well as unspecified economic damages, punitive damages, penalties and a variety of other forms of relief, purportedly arising from the alleged discharges into the Passaic River of a particular type of dioxin and other unspecified hazardous substances. The damages being sought by the plaintiffs from the defendants are likely to be substantial. On February 4, 2009, two of the defendants, Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”) and Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”), filed a third party complaint against over 300 entities, including the Company, seeking to recover all or a proportionate share of cleanup and removal costs, damages or other loss or harm, if any, for which Tierra or Maxus may be held liable in the Tierra/Maxus Litigation. Tierra and Maxus allege that Standard Tallow Company, an entity that the Company acquired in 1996, contributed to the discharge of the hazardous substances that are the subject of this case while operating a former plant site located in Newark, New Jersey. The Company is a party to a settlement in this matter pursuant to which it will pay the State of New Jersey $195,000 and be dismissed from the case. This amount was accrued in the first quarter of 2013. The Superior Court approved the settlement on December 12, 2013 and entered an order dismissing participating third-party defendants from the litigation. We have paid our settlement amount into escrow where it will be held by the Superior Court pending any appeal of the Superior Court’s order. Additionally, in December 2009, the Company, along with numerous other entities, received notice from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the Company (as successor-in-interest to Standard Tallow Company) is considered a potentially responsible party with respect to alleged contamination in the lower Passaic River area which is part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site located in Newark, New Jersey. In the letter, the EPA requested that the Company join a group of other parties in funding a remedial investigation and feasibility study at the site. As of the date of this report, the Company has not agreed to participate in the funding group. The Company's ultimate liability for investigatory costs, remedial costs and/or natural resource damages in connection with the lower Passaic River area cannot be determined at this time; however, as of the date of this report, there is nothing that leads the Company to believe that these matters will have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Fresno Facility Permit Issue. The Company has been named as a defendant and a real party in interest in a lawsuit filed on April 9, 2012 in the Superior Court of the State of California, Fresno County, styled Concerned Citizens of West Fresno vs. Darling International Inc. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that the Company's Fresno facility is operating without a proper use permit and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief. The complaint had at one time also alleged that the Company's Fresno facility constitutes a continuing private and public nuisance, but the plaintiff has since amended the complaint to drop these allegations. The City of Fresno was also named as a defendant in the original complaint but has since had a judgment entered in its favor and is no longer a defendant in the lawsuit; however, in December 2013 the City of Fresno filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this matter. The Superior Court heard the motion on February 4, 2014, and entered an order on February 18, 2014 denying the motion. Rendering operations have been conducted on the site since 1955, and the Company believes that it possesses all of the required federal, state and local permits to continue to operate the facility in the manner currently conducted and that its operations do not constitute a private or public nuisance. Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Discovery has begun and this matter is currently scheduled for trial in July 2014. While management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, management does not believe the outcome will have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

CONTINGENCIES

The Company is a party to several lawsuits, claims and loss contingencies arising in the ordinary course of its business, including assertions by certain regulatory and governmental agencies related to permitting requirements and air, wastewater and storm water discharges from the Company's processing facilities.

The Company’s workers compensation, auto and general liability policies contain significant deductibles or self-insured retentions. The Company estimates and accrues its expected ultimate claim costs related to accidents occurring during each fiscal year and carries this accrual as a reserve until these claims are paid by the Company.

As a result of the matters discussed above, the Company has established loss reserves for insurance, environmental and litigation matters. At December 28, 2013 and December 29, 2012, the reserves for insurance, environmental and litigation contingencies reflected on the balance sheet in accrued expenses and other non-current liabilities were approximately $35.5 million and $37.0 million, respectively. The Company has insurance recovery receivables of approximately $8.8 million and $9.3 million, as of December 28, 2013 and December 29, 2012, respectively, related to these liabilities. The Company's management believes these reserves for contingencies are reasonable and sufficient based upon present governmental regulations and information currently available to management; however, there can be no assurance that final costs related to these matters will not exceed current estimates. The Company believes that the likelihood is remote that any additional liability from these lawsuits and claims that may not be covered by insurance would have a material effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Lower Passaic River Area. The Company has been named as a third party defendant in a lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, styled New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, The Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, as Plaintiffs, vs. Occidental Chemical Corporation, Tierra Solutions, Inc., Maxus Energy Corporation, Repsol YPF, S.A., YPF, S.A., YPF Holdings, Inc., and CLH Holdings, as Defendants (Docket No. L-009868-05) (the “Tierra/Maxus Litigation”). In the Tierra/Maxus Litigation, which was filed on December 13, 2005, the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants past and future cleanup and removal costs, as well as unspecified economic damages, punitive damages, penalties and a variety of other forms of relief, purportedly arising from the alleged discharges into the Passaic River of a particular type of dioxin and other unspecified hazardous substances. The damages being sought by the plaintiffs from the defendants are likely to be substantial. On February 4, 2009, two of the defendants, Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”) and Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”), filed a third party complaint against over 300 entities, including the Company, seeking to recover all or a proportionate share of cleanup and removal costs, damages or other loss or harm, if any, for which Tierra or Maxus may be held liable in the Tierra/Maxus Litigation. Tierra and Maxus allege that Standard Tallow Company, an entity that the Company acquired in

1996, contributed to the discharge of the hazardous substances that are the subject of this case while operating a former plant site located in Newark, New Jersey. The Company is a party to a settlement in this matter pursuant to which it will pay the State of New Jersey $195,000 and be dismissed from the case. This amount was accrued in the first quarter of 2013. The Superior Court approved the settlement on December 12, 2013 and entered an order dismissing participating third-party defendants from the litigation. We have paid our settlement amount into escrow where it will be held by the Superior Court pending any appeal of the Superior Court’s order. Additionally, in December 2009, the Company, along with numerous other entities, received notice from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the Company (as successor-in-interest to Standard Tallow Company) is considered a potentially responsible party with respect to alleged contamination in the lower Passaic River area which is part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site located in Newark, New Jersey. In the letter, the EPA requested that the Company join a group of other parties in funding a remedial investigation and feasibility study at the site. As of the date of this report, the Company has not agreed to participate in the funding group. The Company's ultimate liability for investigatory costs, remedial costs and/or natural resource damages in connection with the lower Passaic River area cannot be determined at this time; however, as of the date of this report, there is nothing that leads the Company to believe that these matters will have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Fresno Facility Permit Issue. The Company has been named as a defendant and a real party in interest in a lawsuit filed on April 9, 2012 in the Superior Court of the State of California, Fresno County, styled Concerned Citizens of West Fresno vs. Darling International Inc. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that the Company's Fresno facility is operating without a proper use permit and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief. The complaint had at one time also alleged that the Company's Fresno facility constitutes a continuing private and public nuisance, but the plaintiff has since amended the complaint to drop these allegations. The City of Fresno was also named as a defendant in the original complaint but has since had a judgment entered in its favor and is no longer a defendant in the lawsuit; however, in December 2013 the City of Fresno filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this matter. The Superior Court heard the motion on February 4, 2014, and entered an order on February 18, 2014 denying the motion. Rendering operations have been conducted on the site since 1955, and the Company believes that it possesses all of the required federal, state and local permits to continue to operate the facility in the manner currently conducted and that its operations do not constitute a private or public nuisance. Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Discovery has begun and this matter is currently scheduled for trial in July 2014. While management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, management does not believe the outcome will have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.