CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Jul. 28, 2013
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Like other participants in the industry, we are subject to various laws and regulations administered by federal, state and other government entities, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and corresponding state agencies, as well as the United States Department of Agriculture, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission and similar agencies in foreign countries. We from time to time receive notices and inquiries from regulatory authorities and others asserting that we are not in compliance with such laws and regulations. In some instances, litigation ensues. In addition, individuals may initiate litigation against us. North Carolina Nuisance Litigation On July 30, 2013, five complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina by 135 individual plaintiffs against Smithfield, our wholly owned subsidiary, Murphy-Brown, and various individuals and entities who are alleged to own or operate farms under contract with Murphy-Brown. Alderman, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 20 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Duplin County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and two additional defendants representing two independent growers and their farms. Aultman, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 23 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Duplin County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and five additional defendants representing four independent growers and their farms and one Company-owned farm. Best, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 25 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Wilson County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and one additional defendant representing one independent grower and its farm. Blanks, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 26 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Bladen County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and three additional defendants representing two independent growers and their farms and one Company-owned farm. Bordeaux, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 41 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Duplin County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and four additional defendants representing two independent growers and their farms. On August 27, 2013, a sixth complaint, titled Cromartie, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., was transmitted to the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina for filing by 32 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Bladen County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and five additional defendants representing two independent growers and their farms and two Company-owned farms. On August 28, 2013, a seventh complaint, titled Bannerman, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., was transmitted to the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina for filing by 14 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Duplin County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and ten additional defendants representing six independent growers and their farms and three Company-owned farms. All seven complaints include causes of action for temporary nuisance, negligence, and negligent entrustment and seek recovery of an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. Defendants are in the process of preparing responsive pleadings in all seven cases. All seven complaints stemmed from requests for pre-litigation mediation of farm nuisance disputes filed in early July 2013 in Wake County, North Carolina. Plaintiffs' counsel have filed pre-litigation mediation notices on behalf of approximately 500 additional claimants who have not filed complaints. Approximately 300 additional potential claimants have threatened to bring claims but not initiated any formal legal process. The Company believes that the allegations are unfounded and intends to defend the suits vigorously. Our policy for establishing accruals and disclosures for contingent liabilities is contained in Note 1-Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 28, 2013. We have not made an accrual on these loss contingencies. Given that this matter is in its very preliminary stages and given the inherent uncertainty of the outcome for these and similar potential claims, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these loss contingencies. We will continue to review whether an accrual is necessary and whether we have the ability to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters.

CONTINGENCIES

Like other participants in the industry, we are subject to various laws and regulations administered by federal, state and other government entities, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and corresponding state agencies, as well as the United States Department of Agriculture, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission and similar agencies in foreign countries.

We from time to time receive notices and inquiries from regulatory authorities and others asserting that we are not in compliance with such laws and regulations. In some instances, litigation ensues. In addition, individuals may initiate litigation against us.

North Carolina Nuisance Litigation

On July 30, 2013, five complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina by 135 individual plaintiffs against Smithfield, our wholly owned subsidiary, Murphy-Brown, and various individuals and entities who are alleged to own or operate farms under contract with Murphy-Brown. Alderman, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 20 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Duplin County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and two additional defendants representing two independent growers and their farms. Aultman, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 23 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Duplin County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and five additional defendants representing four independent growers and their farms and one Company-owned farm. Best, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 25 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Wilson County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and one additional defendant representing one independent grower and its farm. Blanks, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 26 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Bladen County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and three additional defendants representing two independent growers and their farms and one Company-owned farm. Bordeaux, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., involves allegations brought by 41 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Duplin County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and four additional defendants representing two independent growers and their farms.

On August 27, 2013, a sixth complaint, titled Cromartie, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., was transmitted to the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina for filing by 32 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Bladen County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and five additional defendants representing two independent growers and their farms and two Company-owned farms. On August 28, 2013, a seventh complaint, titled Bannerman, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., was transmitted to the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina for filing by 14 plaintiffs alleged to reside in Duplin County, North Carolina against Smithfield, Murphy-Brown, and ten additional defendants representing six independent growers and their farms and three Company-owned farms. All seven complaints include causes of action for temporary nuisance, negligence, and negligent entrustment and seek recovery of an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. Defendants are in the process of preparing responsive pleadings in all seven cases.

All seven complaints stemmed from requests for pre-litigation mediation of farm nuisance disputes filed in early July 2013 in Wake County, North Carolina. Plaintiffs' counsel have filed pre-litigation mediation notices on behalf of approximately 500 additional claimants who have not filed complaints. Approximately 300 additional potential claimants have threatened to bring claims but not initiated any formal legal process. The Company believes that the allegations are unfounded and intends to defend the suits vigorously.

Our policy for establishing accruals and disclosures for contingent liabilities is contained in Note 1-Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 28, 2013. We have not made an accrual on these loss contingencies. Given that this matter is in its very preliminary stages and given the inherent uncertainty of the outcome for these and similar potential claims, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these loss contingencies. We will continue to review whether an accrual is necessary and whether we have the ability to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters.