Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the General Mills fiscal first quarter 2010 results conference call. (Operator Instructions) I would now like to turn the conference over to Ms. Kris Wenker, Vice President of Investor Relations for General Mills. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Operator. Good morning, everybody. I am hear with Ken Powell, our CEO; Don Mulligan, our CFO; and Ian Friendly, Head of our U.S. Retail Business, and I am going to turn the microphone over to them in just a minute. First, I need to cover my usual housekeeping items. Our press release on first quarter results was issued over the wire services earlier this morning. It’s also posted on our website if you still need a copy. We have posted slides on the website too. They supplement our prepared remarks this morning and these remarks will include forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current views and assumptions. The second slide in today’s presentation lists factors that could cause our future results to be different than our current estimates. And with that, I will turn you over to my colleagues, beginning with Don Mulligan.

Thanks, Kris and thanks to all of you who have joined us by webcast. As you have seen from our financial results released this morning, General Mills is off to a very strong start in fiscal 2010. Slide 4 summarizes our first quarter results. Net sales grew 1% on top of 14% sales growth in last year’s first quarter. Segment operating profit grew 21%. This reflects strong gross margin performance driven in part by recovery of margin that we gave up a year ago due to sharp input cost inflation. But excellent operating performance in our plant was also a key factor in reducing our cost of goods sold. Net earnings totaled $421 million and diluted EPS increased to $1.25. These results include a net reduction related to mark-to-market valuation of certain commodity positions and grain inventories. That non-cash impact totaled $0.03 per share this quarter, less than the $0.17 reported last year. Excluding mark-to-market impact from both years, diluted EPS grew 33% to reach $1.28 per share. These results significantly exceeded our expectations. We anticipated our Q1 input costs would be below year-ago levels. In fact, costs came in a bit better than our plan estimates. Our plan operating performance was also better than plan. This was a result of continued good sales levels, which created operating leverage in our facilities. Mix was favorable and our multi-year focus on continuous improvement and holistic margin management, or HMM, is generating accumulating efficiencies in our plants. The net sales gain of 1% overall is consistent with our annual guidance. As you know, we are targeting reported sales comparable to 2009 levels. But I would characterize our top line results as a bit ahead of our first quarter expectations, particularly in U.S. retail, where growth was stronger than the low-single-digit increase we’re…

Thanks, Don and good morning, everyone. The U.S. retail business is off to a strong start in fiscal 2010. We coupled good volume growth with margin improvement. We are executing well against our proven business model and delivering strong fundamental growth. The same factors that have been driving our growth the past few years are still working well for us. For one, we are an advantaged category. Over the latest 52 weeks, the categories where we compete are growing more than two times faster than food and beverage categories in total. We are seeing good growth across most of our categories, including high-single-digit sales increase for hot snacks, Mexican products, and dessert mixes, and these are growth rates in measured channels. Sales in non-measured channels are generally growing at a faster rate. This category growth has sustained in recent months. Overall sales growth hasn’t slowed as we’ve lapped price increases because we’ve seen unit growth accelerate. Slide 20 shows the growth for our combined categories over the latest year, the latest quarter, and the latest month. Our categories continue to grow at a robust 4% rate in measured channels alone. And our brands continue to drive growth for our retail partners. General Mills has about a 3.5% share of total food and beverage sales in Nielsen measured channels, but our share of total growth across all food and beverage categories was higher than that in the most recent three months, so our overall share of industry sales was up. This increase was a result of the strong categories we compete in and the good performance of our brands. The fundamentals of our brands remain healthy. Baseline, or non-promoted sales for our brands grew 2.5% in the first quarter on top of strong growth in the same period last year and…

Thanks, Ian and good morning to one and all. I appreciate your joining us on the call today and let me start my comments with a review of our bakeries and food service performance. As you know, it’s a challenging environment for this business right now as consumers eat more at home but our bakeries and food service team is performing well. We have made significant changes to our business over the last few years, dramatically reducing the number of items we offer and consolidating our supply chain operation. We recently built an in-house sales force for the convenience store and food service distributor businesses that is helping drive differential performance for us. Our sales for this segment totaled more than $400 million in the first quarter. About 60% of those sales were to bakeries and national restaurant accounts; 30% were to food service distributors; and just over 10% went to convenience stores. We believe the last two channels I mentioned, distributors and convenience stores, are our best opportunities for profitable sustainable growth. Our sales to distributors were up 1% in the first quarter despite industry sales decline. Industry sales were down in convenience stores as well but our business grew 8% in the quarter, driven by distribution gains and new product innovation. Higher margin branded products now generate more than 65% of our bakeries and food service sales and we expect that percentage to increase again this year. These products are branded either to the end consumer or to the food service operator. I’ll highlight results for a few key segments. Net sales for our cereal brands in these channels were up 6%; yogurt sales were up 12%; and sales of our snack brands were up 15%. By focusing on the best channels and our higher margin products, we…

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from the line of Chris Crowe from Stifel Nicolaus. Please proceed.

Very nice quarter. Good job on this first quarter here. I wanted to ask, and if you look at the first quarter, obviously that’s just tremendous gross margin performance. You obviously had some strong pricing coming through, particularly in U.S. retail and input costs were lower so I would just be curious -- it sounds like you had planned on costs being lower in this first quarter. Do you have that view now for the full year, that input costs would be lower?

No, not for the full year -- we still expect low-single-digit inflation, a bit lower than we had originally thought but still on the plus side of the ledger. We did see lower input costs in the first quarter but as you referenced and as we said it, that was actually planned although they did come in a bit better than our expectations.

Okay, and in this environment of lower input costs and obviously we still saw some residual pricing this quarter, which is very, very good but are you seeing any change or increase in competitive levels of promotion or do you anticipate that in some of your categories where -- particularly where the input costs are markedly lower?

Overall I wouldn’t characterize it that way. I think we are seeing a fairly normal level of competitiveness across most of our categories. As I said in my comments, we are seeing a little bit more competitive pressure in the yogurt category as dairy prices come down and our key competitor has discounted fairly heavily but we feel that’s pretty much manageable. Throughout the year we monitor always our trade and promotion and pricing activities and make adjustments. I wouldn’t characterize what we believe the go-forward to be anything atypical or uncharacteristic of the past.

Okay. If I could just ask one final one -- in the food services division, the absence of those couple of divestitures, could you give an idea of what that contributed maybe to the margin or to the profits of the business?

I don’t know that we are giving that level of detail. I think we told you that we -- that it took out about, of that sales decline, 10 percentage points were from that divestiture and we don’t go into that level of detail on margin but I will tell you, Chris -- this is Ken -- that we’ve made multiple divestitures over the last four or five years. I think we’ve taken out over half of our plants now and it’s approaching over 60% of the SKUs, and all of this activity has been to get this business leaner and more focused on those higher margin branded businesses that go through the higher margin channels and I think the cumulative impact of all of that work over the past several years is -- it’s just really starting to pay off for us in fundamentally better margin profile for the overall business.

Okay. Thank you for your time.

Your next question comes from the line of Eric Katzman from Deutsche Bank.

Good morning, everybody. I guess a couple of quick questions -- one, how much do you think the fact that Nestle was off shelf helped the margin performance in U.S. retail with -- because I know the refrigerated dough business is a high margin business to begin with and then if your competitor is off-shelf, I have to imagine it was extremely good this quarter.

Yeah I would say overall of U.S. retail that effect was obviously muted. Within our Pillsbury refrigerated baked goods, it was -- I think we gained probably about four share points out of that. It was a factor. Certainly we had a more positive than expected Q1 in Pillsbury on that business as a result. We would have had good results though even without that so I would say it was obviously a tailwind in the quarter but not material as it relates to the total results.

Okay. Thank you for that and then just as a follow-up to Chris’ question -- so Ken, to just understand, it’s been a long time since the Pillsbury acquisition and the food service business has always been an -- I’d say operated below expectations from the original plan but can we -- do you think we can start to model this kind of margin level going forward for that division? I mean, are we now with the latest divestitures at just a sustainable new level?

Well, I think this quarter, Eric, was for all the reasons Don mentioned, was particularly good. We were going up against very high input cost inflation a year ago and we have very significantly lower costs during this quarter in those effects and we also had substantial pricing during the first quarter in food service a year ago and so those effects will moderate over the course of the year. But we do think -- you know, our goal all along has been to get our food service business sustainably into double-digit margin territory and that continues to be what we are going to strive for. We’ve got a good shot at doing that this year and obviously as we continue to restructure the division and get it more focused, I think we are making very good headway at that sort of sustainable margin performance that you are describing.

And then last and I’ll pass it on, Ken -- do you think, or maybe you could just kind of describe the -- kind of the state of relations with the retailers? You don’t have to get specific but obviously there’s a pressure to cut SKUs perhaps more than there has been historically. Some of the major packaged food -- or sorry, some of the major consumer product companies like Proctor lowered prices, which seemed pretty unusual. How do you describe across your categories and across the retail partners, how would you describe the situation?

Very, very positive, Eric -- we’re bringing them a very strong portfolio of leading brands -- number one or number two share brands in categories that they really care about. We are bringing them terrific innovation and Ian described some of that for you, and so we are certainly delivering on the -- our responsibility to help them drive their categories. We are also bringing them across the board a lot of capabilities. We are bringing them marketing and consumer insight capability that’s helped them with some of their programs. We’ve got a lot of focus on jointly trying to get logistic costs out of the system, so I would describe the relationship with our retail partners as very strong across the board. They like what our brands are doing for them. You know, we do know of course that SKU rationalization is something that they are focused on and as we said before, we think that that makes sense. That’s an appropriate strategy for them. We do that to ourselves and because we think that’s a good way to drive mix but even in this environment, distribution for our U.S. RO products during the first quarter increased by three percentage points and I think that just shows the overall strength of our brand portfolio. Ian, would you want to comment?

Yeah, just two things to add to what Ken said is, as I mentioned in my remarks, we are driving very strong baseline sales growth by our reinvestment in our brands and not only is that the most profitable volume for us but that is the most profitable volume for our customers as well so we are driving business off the shelf in that kind of way ahead of our categories. That’s a win-win situation for everyone involved and I would just support the notion that Ken said in -- well, we have expanded our distribution in a world that rationalizes, it’s really the number one or number two brands that are creating growth that are going to win in that environment, so we like what we are doing. The last thing I will mention is in the area you asked about, which was pricing. And if you just looked at Nielsen data for us in the last quarter, our prices now are effectively up 1% to 2%. I would say most of the branded manufacturers in our category are roughly the same and retail brand, that’s our customers brand, are up about a point higher than we are. So we’ve been very modest in our pricing and really using HMM as the first line of defense on what was inflation and now against driving our margins and keeping our pricing very well in line with the market.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of David Palmer from UBS.

You mentioned your international cereal sales are up and that you are gaining share. I was wondering if you could perhaps give some big picture comments about the cereal category in Europe and perhaps other international -- how is the trend category growth wise and perhaps even branded share? Any sort of comments on that would be helpful in the economic environment.

Typically the cereal category outside the U.S. will grow 2%, 2% or 3% year over year. I would say the last year-and-a-half, it’s been closer to 1%, 1.5%. So it is down a little bit and I don’t know that I can right now give you too much detail on the mix of that, so we have seen it slow down a little bit but still growing and CPW is still getting good top line growth and from memory, the last time I looked at this, our share was up in seven or eight of our top 10 markets. So we are -- so there has been I think probably a little bit of an impact in this current economic environment on the cereal category outside the U.S. but again, still growing and still a category where when you look at the penetration of this category compared to what it is in the U.S., there is just huge upside to continue to grow it, grow penetration. I think we have decades of growth to look forward in the international cereal category and CPW, very well-positioned to continue to grow and continue to capitalize on that market. In fact, really two years ago the cereal category outside the U.S. became larger than the cereal category in the U.S., so that’s actually -- the international part of the market is the larger part of the global cereal market now. So it’s big and growing and very promising for us.

And just one quick one on yogurt in the U.S. -- in many ways that category seems like the perfect food, including value and it doesn’t seem obvious that that category overall would slow during tough economic times but it definitely does not have the growth that it did before and that’s obviously now a very high margin category for you at that scale. What do you think is the big picture for yogurt? Are we past -- is there a long curve playing out here where we are not going to see the growth of yester-year in that category?

I still think in yogurt, we’re in the early innings and I don’t think that story or that curve has run out at all. I do think that we need more innovation to drive the category and as I said earlier, I’m not sure that heavily discounting the product is a good long-term growth strategy for the category. We are going to focus our energies on innovation and our brand marketing support, which have increased substantially in yogurt, and I think we are seeing that now as the different months go by that yogurt will progressively better as a category. The other part that you probably don’t have nearly as much visibility to is the channel side, which is substantial. And as you know, you don’t have Walmart in the Nielsen data, nor club stores or drug and discount, and particularly Walmart and Club are very, very big players in yogurt. Those categories and our business with them are growing tremendously and that isn’t entirely visible in the Nielsen data and there’s probably some channel shift going on there as well.

Thank you, guys.

Your next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley.

This is Jackie [Inglesby] for Vincent. First of all, congratulations on a great quarter. I just have a question on -- your COGS obviously came in very favorable relative to where we had thought. Is there a way to kind of think about how much of that might have been dairy related?

Rather than break out individual components of it, if you look at our COGS year over year, it was down significantly. There’s a couple of major contributors. One is mark-to-market, the mark-to-market adjustment that we make each quarter contributed about $77 million of that swing. If you’ll recall, we had about a $91 million charge last year first quarter. This year it was only about $15 million or $14 million. So that’s about a third of that reduction. The rest, about half of it or a little over half of it is rate and mix and that’s a combination of the deflation that we saw, great plant operations, great logistical savings, so all the supply chain performance that we saw this quarter. Volume contributed a little over 10% and while volume was up, the divested lines actually had a higher cost per case, COGS cost per case, so that contributed to the reduction in COGS. And then finally FOREX had an impact to a couple percent, 2% or 3% in the reduction.

Okay, great, thanks. And I guess on FX, you are now thinking that that’s going to come in a little -- as slightly less of a headwind than you had thought? You previously talked about $0.15 a share. Is there any update to that?

In the guidance, we do have a plus of $0.02 or $0.03 versus our plan. If you remember in July when we gave our guidance, we said there was that $0.15 headwind. Two things to remember -- the majority of it was transaction and a large portion of that was hedged, so that is fixed and even as the dollar moves, we won't see any change from our plan rates in that portion of our foreign exchange. So the part that actually has any kind of variability to it is only a fraction of that $0.15. And as I said, given the recent movement in the dollar, we see $0.02 or $0.03 plus coming through for the full year versus our guidance in July, and that is obviously embedded in our current guidance.

Okay, great and just one more quick one, if I could -- on bakery and foods service, you are obviously saying that sales are going to be lower year over year but that your margins are going to expand, so how is a good way for us to kind of think about operating profit growth in that segment?

What we said in July and we can certainly expand on that now is that we will expect the sales to be down because the divested businesses and the indexed pricing on the bakery flour. We still expect margin expansion -- that is, we expect profit to decrease by less than sales. Given our strong first quarter and the momentum that we see in the business, we are even more bullish than that and that bullishness is also factored into our current guidance. As Ken just mentioned, our goal has always been to return that business to a double-digit operating profit margin and we thought that was a couple of years out. We are going to strive to see if we can get there this year.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Congratulations again.

Your next question comes from the line of Terry Bivens from J.P. Morgan.

Good morning, everyone. I guess this is for Ian -- Ian, if you look at U.S. cereal all channels, what do you put category growth at here?

I would estimate about a mid-single-digit growth in all channels.

Okay -- five or six-ish maybe?

Around four to five is sort of where I would --

Four to five, okay. And as you look at what appears to be pretty strong category growth, I guess the question would be where do you think you are sourcing most of your market share gains from?

Do you mean by brand or by customer or what is the --

I would say by competitor, was what I was trying to get at.

Well I think for the category primarily for the quarter, in cereal you interact with everyone but if you look at the total quarter, I think Kellogg’s is up slightly, Post was obviously down a great deal in the quarter, so I think they went through some pricing and some transitional issues logistically so for our first quarter, I think most of the people in cereal probably sourced to a disproportionate degree from Post. I don’t think that’s necessarily a long-term trend but that’s how that quarter played out.

Terry, you know, we don’t really think about it that way, you know, going after competitors to get share. I mean, we’re sourcing our share growth from the consumer and if you really -- if you look at, think back to Ian’s presentation, we really have I think as a result a very sound marketing execution brand by brand across our portfolio. You know, baseline growth on all the core brands -- I mean, it really is a case of building it up brand by brand, focus on execution, get the baselines going and that is leading to a couple of years now of very consistent share growth for us and I think as Ian said from the competitive standpoint, who’s up and who’s down in any given period, it depends largely on what they are doing. We just keep our focus on our brands and on the consumer.

The other thing I would just add to that, Terry, is I think the big story in cereal primarily is the vibrancy of the category and the consistency of the category’s growth. This is very good growth for cereal. It’s carried through as I mentioned, as we’ve lapped pricing now. It’s really good unit volume growth. Cereal as a category is very healthy and that’s a good story for us and probably all the players in the category.

I couldn’t agree more there. I think there’s a very strong demographic that supports it as well -- baby boomers like myself, I guess. A question, a quick one on yogurt -- I know you didn’t want to quantify the profitability factor with Yoplait but it would seem that it was a pretty good contributor given what appears to be, you know, you stayed a little bit more rational there and obviously you are benefiting from lower input costs there. Is that a fair statement to say that that was a nice contributor to the U.S. retail performance?

It’s a very fair statement to say that yogurt was a nice contributor. I will tell you though that on our earnings side, it was very strong earnings growth really across all our divisions and so while yogurt was terrific, I can tell you there was pretty terrific performance across the board.

Okay, very good. That’s it for me. Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from the line of Ken Zaslow from BMO Capital Markets.

Good morning, everyone. Just a very quick and probably obvious question, but I just want to double check -- is there any reason to believe that General Mills' long-term growth target would change at all, just given the strength of 2010 or going beyond, you would still keep that exact algorithm, that this is the new base earnings per se?

No, we’re going to -- we like that growth model that we have and we are going to -- we’ll stick with that. That’s a model that it’s our promise to shareholders that we are going to figure out a way to get them a double-digit return year-in and year-out, and that’s a combination of high-single-digit EPS coupled with a good dividend yield, so we like that model and we’ll stay with it. We are obviously pleased that we are doing better than that model this year but we’ll stay with it and we are very, very confident that that’s a sustainable model for us. And the reason that we are, Ken, goes back to the conversation that we just had with Terry Bivens -- our categories are just absolutely rock solid, they are doing very, very well, growing 4%. They are great categories that really respond to innovation and we’ve got great leading brands in those categories, so we really have a lot of confidence in our ability to sustain good consistent performance going forward.

My second question, I know you only give it out once in the K every year, but can you discuss your ability to exceed your overall growth with your number one customer? And what are you doing to drive the outperformance relative to your other businesses? Obviously [more money]. I know you give it out in the 10-K.

I’m sorry, Ken -- what’s the question?

In your 10-K, you always are able to provide your top customer and what the -- you could always back into what the growth is on the sales line of your top customer. Year after year, you guys do exceed your overall sales growth in that -- with that one customer. I’m just trying to figure out exactly what you are doing in that one channel that is really exceeding your underlying overall sales growth.

Well Ken, our commitment is we want to lead growth and drive growth with all of our retail partners and so we are bringing these great brands and all of our capabilities and all of our marketing initiative to all of our retail partners to help work in a coordinated way with their strategy and we really want to lead growth with all of them. Now it so happens that over the last several years, Walmart has been able to grow faster than many of our other retail partners and we’ve grown faster with them as well because of all the things that I just mentioned. But our commitment really is to lead that growth everywhere that we compete.

Is there anything special that you do with them or is it just [inaudible]?

Well I mean, each customer has their own approach, their own -- and they focus on different things and our job is to partner with them in the ways that are most important to them to help drive growth in their categories. I don’t want to go into the details of Walmart’s strategy versus another person’s strategy but we think that we are doing a very good job now of really listening to our customers and aligning with their growth drivers and really delivering differential growth for them. And again, this is something we are trying to do across all of our customers.

And my last question, can you give us some examples of some meaningful changes that you are doing in HMM? Just -- I know the lids and it was the old one -- if you can just give a litany of examples of what you are doing. I know that that they probably [inaudible] [each in of themselves] probably doesn’t add up to much but if you could just give us some ideas of exactly what you are doing, it would be very helpful?

Thanks for that question, Ken because HMM continues to be a very, very high focus for General Mills and a key driver of our performance, including this quarter and we all have our hands raised because we want to answer the question but I’ll give you -- I mean, one that I think is very interesting is that on the logistics side of our business this quarter, our fuel use -- and I’m not talking about the dollars that we spent on fuel. I’m talking about the gallons of fuel that we use, was down over 10% in a quarter where our volume was up. And the reason for that was because of a very high focus on HMM kind of thinking, so we improved our forecasting, we changed the way we are -- we coordinate and manage our trucks. We got a lot smarter and developed software and different techniques to fill those trucks better. And that sounds very mundane but actually being able to do those kinds of things enabled us to deliver goods much more efficiently, use less fuel, take trucks off the road, and drive costs out of that logistics system. So that’s just another example of how this very broad scale HMM effort continues to pay dividends for us. I don’t know, I think Don had one that he wanted to talk about.

Ken, there’s difference facets of it. Ken alluded to one that was on the productivity side, as we call it, supply chain productivity, mix management continues to play a role. If you look at our Pillsbury business, not only is it contributing but from a mix standpoint, it’s growing faster than our overall business with its higher margin product line. But it’s done that consistently over the last several years as we’ve reallocated and redirected more of our innovation and advertising support behind RBG, our refrigerated baked goods business. As a consequence, over the last three years we’ve seen a 350 basis point improvement in our gross margin in our Pillsbury business here in the U.S. We have a similar -- we talk similarly on snacks, for example, where we’ve done some packaging redesigns in our fruit snacks business, which is taking costs out of the product but also driven some efficiencies in the manufacturing platforms and we’ve seen over a point-and-a-half growth in our gross margin in our snacks business. So again, I think the key thing to take away is it’s broad based and the other thing is that we’ve talked about more recently is the expansion of HMM to international, where we are going to double our HMM contributions this year. We see it in our administrative costs, which are trending below our historical growth rates because we are applying those same value stream mapping tools and continuous improvement tools to our administrative processes you can see in savings there as well. So it really permeates the entire organization so there’s a -- you know, we can name a thousand examples and they in and of themselves, some of them are material and some of them are less significant but in aggregate, they are very meaningful to our results.

Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Lazar from Barclays Capital.

The first thing is just on plant efficiencies. Last year in fiscal ’09 you had very strong volumes for a lot of the year as well and I guess I just don’t remember hearing as much about plant efficiencies as I’m hearing sort of currently, so I’m trying to get a sense of maybe why that was or what has changed, what is different now that you seeing so much more that volume strength drive the plant efficiencies? And as part of that, how has case volume being ahead of tonnage helped your operating leverage? I just want to make sure I understand the dynamic of that.

I would say to answer the first part of your question is that indeed you are quite correct that we last year had very strong volume growth and this year have strong volume -- what is changing consistently is an integral part of HMM for us has been a continuous improvement effort in our plants and what those efforts have seemingly reached a very nice tipping point are starting to shine through and so what we are finding now is much better than expected plant performance and when you put volume leverage over that, it really rang through in the quarter and I expect it will ring through for the year. And so that -- it really is just operating smarter, all the principles of HMM and continuous improvement now really showing up in a meaningful, a very meaningful way in our plant operation, a differential from prior years. And so I think -- and Ken gave one example of that on the logistics side just a moment ago. As it relates to case volume, you know, what our plants really run on on volume isn’t pounds. For example, Green Giant canned vegetables, a very heavy product, so you can have that volume move and let’s say that’s down and a cereal case is up, you’d have a lot more cereal cases required on a weight basis. And so what we are seeing is as we also shift our mix typically to what is higher margin products for us, they tend to also be more case volume out the plant door and so you get that leverage. And in U.S. retail, our internal case volume was very close, just a little bit below our sales growth increase, so quite a bit above the pound volume statistics you heard. And so that’s providing extra leverage and that’s really what a factory runs on.

Great. That’s helpful. Thank you and then just a last one, in thinking over the last quarter or so we’ve seen a bunch of food companies kind of raise their spending estimates about what they are spending back behind let’s say we’ll call it up-front costs, you know, the spending that they embed in their earnings to drive future productivity. And obviously with the kind of earnings upside that you have shown, you are going to spend some of that back as you talked about around marketing reinvestment and such. You are embedding I guess around $30 million or so of expected restructuring in the year. I’m just curious if you’ve looked at are there additional opportunities to use some more of this to drive productivity down the line? Obviously you are generating the productivity in a pretty big way, so is the spending behind HMM already at levels that you deem adequate? I’m just trying to get a sense of if you’ve kind of looked at that and how that analysis goes.

Our guidance for the year still remains the $30 million for restructuring, so we don’t see any change in our up-front costs, as you called it, or restructuring as we classify them, which is very similar to what we have done for the last several years so we think that’s the right budget for us. The efficiencies that we are seeing and the gains that we are seeing in HMM because they are very broad-based, we don’t see requiring more up-front costs. What you have noticed is we have increased of our capital spending behind that and also capital spending behind our growth at our capacity, which we think is kind of the phase two benefit of HMM -- that is, we’ve seen the savings, we reinvested effectively, and now we are seeing the stronger top line growth. So HMM is, if you will, contributing a second wave of benefit -- now we are seeing it on the top line as well as in the middle of the P&L.

Great. Okay, thanks very much. That’s helpful.

Everybody, I’m sorry but we are a little bit over time here and one of my speakers at least is booked heavily today so I apologize -- we’re going to have to cut it off there. I know there are other people with questions. Please give a shout.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your lines. Have a great day, everybody.