Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 30, 2017
Contingencies [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES The Company is a party to various lawsuits, claims and loss contingencies arising in the ordinary course of its business, including insured worker's compensation, auto, and general liability claims, assertions by certain regulatory and governmental agencies related to permitting requirements and/or air, wastewater and storm water discharges from the Company's processing facilities, litigation involving tort, contract, statutory, labor, employment, and other claims, and tax matters. 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 under these insurance policies 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, litigation and tax contingencies. At December 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the reserves for insurance, environmental, litigation and tax contingencies reflected on the balance sheet in accrued expenses and other non-current liabilities were approximately $61.4 million and $51.9 million, respectively. The Company has insurance recovery receivables of approximately $25.0 million and $15.9 million, as of December 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, related to the insurance contingencies. 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 contingencies will not exceed current estimates. The Company believes that the likelihood is remote that any additional liability from the lawsuits and claims that may not be covered by insurance would have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Lower Passaic River Area. 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 (a “PRP”) 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. The Company’s designation as a PRP is based upon the operation of a former plant site located in Newark, New Jersey by Standard Tallow Company, an entity that the Company acquired in 1996. In the letter, 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. In March 2016, the Company received another letter from EPA notifying the Company that it had issued a Record of Decision selecting a remedy for the lower 8.3 miles of the lower Passaic River area at an estimated cost of $1.38 billion. The EPA letter makes no demand on the Company and lays out a framework for remedial design/remedial action implementation in which the EPA will first seek funding from major PRPs. The letter indicates that the EPA has sent the letter to over 100 parties, which include large chemical and refining companies, manufacturing companies, foundries, plastic companies, pharmaceutical companies and food and consumer product companies. The Company's ultimate liability, if any, 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, the Company has found no evidence that the former Standard Tallow Company plant site contributed any of the primary contaminants of concern to the Passaic River and, therefore, there is nothing that leads the Company to believe that this matter 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 was scheduled for trial in July 2014; however, the parties have agreed to stay the litigation while they participate in a mediation process, which remains ongoing. In January 2017, the Company entered into a non-binding letter of intent with the City of Fresno pursuant to which the City and the Company will work toward the execution of a definitive agreement to relocate the facility to a different location in Fresno. Whether an agreement to relocate the facility ultimately gets executed is subject to the Company’s receipt of certain incentives and an agreement by the Concerned Citizens of West Fresno to settle and dismiss the aforementioned litigation. 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 various lawsuits, claims and loss contingencies arising in the ordinary course of its business, including insured worker's compensation, auto, and general liability claims, assertions by certain regulatory and governmental agencies related to permitting requirements and/or air, wastewater and storm water discharges from the Company's processing facilities, litigation involving tort, contract, statutory, labor, employment, and other claims, and tax matters.

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 under these insurance policies 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, litigation and tax contingencies. At December 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the reserves for insurance, environmental, litigation and tax contingencies reflected on the balance sheet in accrued expenses and other non-current liabilities were approximately $61.4 million and $51.9 million, respectively. The Company has insurance recovery receivables of approximately $25.0 million and $15.9 million, as of December 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, related to the insurance contingencies. 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 contingencies will not exceed current estimates. The Company believes that the likelihood is remote that any additional liability from the lawsuits and claims that may not be covered by insurance would have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Lower Passaic River Area. 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 (a “PRP”) 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. The Company’s designation as a PRP is based upon the operation of a former plant site located in Newark, New Jersey by Standard Tallow Company, an entity that the Company acquired in 1996. In the letter, 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. In March 2016, the Company received another letter from EPA notifying the Company that it had issued a Record of Decision selecting a remedy for the lower 8.3 miles of the lower Passaic River area at an estimated cost of $1.38 billion. The EPA letter makes no demand on the Company and lays out a framework for remedial design/remedial action implementation in which the EPA will first seek funding from major PRPs. The letter indicates that the EPA has sent the letter to over 100 parties, which include large chemical and refining companies, manufacturing companies, foundries, plastic companies, pharmaceutical companies and food and consumer product companies. The Company's ultimate liability, if any, 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, the Company has found no evidence that the former Standard Tallow Company plant site contributed any of the primary contaminants of concern to the Passaic River and, therefore, there is nothing that leads the Company to believe that this matter 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 was scheduled for trial in July 2014; however, the parties have agreed to stay the litigation while they participate in a mediation process, which remains ongoing. In January 2017, the Company entered into a non-binding letter of intent with the City of Fresno pursuant to which the City and the Company will work toward the execution of a definitive agreement to relocate the facility to a different location in Fresno. Whether an agreement to relocate the facility ultimately gets executed is subject to the Company’s receipt of certain incentives and an agreement by the Concerned Citizens of West Fresno to settle and dismiss the aforementioned litigation. 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.