Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	12. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that are pending or threatened against the Company, except as described below. On November 10, 2016, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in which both the Environmental Crimes Section (“ECS”) of USEPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) are seeking the production of documents relating to the re-importation of depleted Thimet containers between 2011 and 2016. The Company has retained defense counsel and is cooperating with both ECS and DoJ in the production. During the three month and six month periods ended June 30, 2017, significant legal costs have been expended in connection with this activity. At this stage, ECS and DoJ have not made clear their intentions with regard to any potential criminal enforcement. Thus, it is too early to tell whether a loss on either front is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency on these matters. Delaware DBCP Cases. On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USDC DE No. 1:12-CV-00695-LPS) involving claims for physical injury arising from alleged exposure to DBCP (a nematicide that had been manufactured and sold by the Company for a brief period of time in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s) on behalf of 2,700 banana plantation workers over the course of the late 1960’s through the mid-1980’s in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Panama. Defendant Dole brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from Abad Castillo on the ground that they were parties in cases that had been previously filed by HendlerLaw, P.C. in Louisiana. On September 19, 2013, the appeals court affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding that 14 of the 22 plaintiffs should be dismissed. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted Dole’s motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations had expired in 1995. Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary judgment in favor of defendants (on the same ground as the earlier motion) and the court entered judgment in the matter. Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to appeal; however, only 57 of the 2,700 actually entered an appeal. Thus, at this stage, only 57 plaintiffs remain in the action. On or about June 18, 2017, the Third Circuit Court submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court on the question of when the class action tolling period ended. During the pendency of this question, these matters will be effectively stayed. At any rate, the Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and has not recorded a loss contingency. Walker v. AMVAC. On or about April 10, 2017, the Company was served with a summons and complaint that had been filed with the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption Larry L. Walker v. Amvac Chemical Corporation (as No. 4:17-cv-00017). Plaintiff seeks contract damages, correction of inventorship, accounting and injunctive relief arising from for the Company’s alleged misuse of his confidential information to support a patent application (which was subsequently issued) for a post-harvest corn herbicide that the Company has not commercialized. Plaintiff claims further that he, not the Company, should be identified as the inventor in such application. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously. On May 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, or in the alternative, for transfer of venue, on the ground that (i) the complaint fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted, (ii) the contracts cited by plaintiff in his complaint include a forum selection clause requiring that disputes are to be adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and (iii) under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.

12. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that are pending or threatened against the Company, except as described below.

On November 10, 2016, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in which both the Environmental Crimes Section (“ECS”) of USEPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) are seeking the production of documents relating to the re-importation of depleted Thimet containers between 2011 and 2016. The Company has retained defense counsel and is cooperating with both ECS and DoJ in the production. During the three month and six month periods ended June 30, 2017, significant legal costs have been expended in connection with this activity. At this stage, ECS and DoJ have not made clear their intentions with regard to any potential criminal enforcement. Thus, it is too early to tell whether a loss on either front is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency on these matters.

Delaware DBCP Cases. On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USDC DE No. 1:12-CV-00695-LPS) involving claims for physical injury arising from alleged exposure to DBCP (a nematicide that had been manufactured and sold by the Company for a brief period of time in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s) on behalf of 2,700 banana plantation workers over the course of the late 1960’s through the mid-1980’s in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Panama. Defendant Dole brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from Abad Castillo on the ground that they were parties in cases that had been previously filed by HendlerLaw, P.C. in Louisiana. On September 19, 2013, the appeals court affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding that 14 of the 22 plaintiffs should be dismissed. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted Dole’s motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations had expired in 1995. Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary judgment in favor of defendants (on the same ground as the earlier motion) and the court entered judgment in the matter. Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to appeal; however, only 57 of the 2,700 actually entered an appeal. Thus, at this stage, only 57 plaintiffs remain in the action. On or about June 18, 2017, the Third Circuit Court submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court on the question of when the class action tolling period ended. During the pendency of this question, these matters will be effectively stayed. At any rate, the Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and has not recorded a loss contingency.

Walker v. AMVAC. On or about April 10, 2017, the Company was served with a summons and complaint that had been filed with the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption Larry L. Walker v. Amvac Chemical Corporation (as No. 4:17-cv-00017). Plaintiff seeks contract damages, correction of inventorship, accounting and injunctive relief arising from for the Company’s alleged misuse of his confidential information to support a patent application (which was subsequently issued) for a post-harvest corn herbicide that the Company has not commercialized. Plaintiff claims further that he, not the Company, should be identified as the inventor in such application. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously. On May 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, or in the alternative, for transfer of venue, on the ground that (i) the complaint fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted, (ii) the contracts cited by plaintiff in his complaint include a forum selection clause requiring that disputes are to be adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and (iii) under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.