Kris Wenker – Vice President Investor Relations Ken Powell – Chairman, Chief Executive Officer Don Mulligan – Chief Financial Officer Chris O’Leary – Chief Operating Officer International Ian Friendly – Chief Operating Officer US Retail

David Palmer – UBS Andrew Lazar – Lehman Brothers Terry Bivens – J.P. Morgan David Driscoll – Citigroup Robert Moskow – Credit Suisse Eric Serotta – Merrill Lynch Ken Zaslow – BMO Capital Markets

Good morning everybody, we’re going to get ourselves started here. I’m Kris Wenker, for those of you that I haven’t had a chance to meet, I’d like to welcome you, everybody here in the room joining us in Chicago as well as the people who are listening in via the webcast. Here with me are General Mills Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ken Powell, our CFO Don Mulligan, Chris O’Leary who’s Chief Operating Officer for the international businesses and Ian Friendly who’s our Chief Operating Officer for US Retail. Before they begin their presentation, I get to do the reminder that our presentation will include forward looking statements. These are based on current estimates and assumptions and as the slide behind me illustrates, there are factors that could cause our future results to be different than our estimates. We issued a press release earlier this morning that contains our fourth quarter and our full year 2008 results. You can find a copy of that press release out on our website if you haven’t yet pulled one. The slides from today’s presentation are also on our website. There are a few slides at the end of the packet that reconcile non-GAAP measures that we’ll be referencing today. And that’s the end of my housekeeping, with that I’ll turn it over to Ken Powell.

Well, good morning to one and all. I want to thank all of you for joining us this morning and I’d thank you all very much for your continuing interest in General Mills. I’m very pleased to be here to give you this update on our 2008 performance and as you know we’ll be talking about our plans for continuing our growth in 2009. Fiscal 2008 was a strong year for General Mills, particularly on the top line. Every one of our operating divisions and business segments posted a sales increase for the year and we finished well with net sales in the final quarter up 13%. This sales performance drove fiscal 2008 results to exceed our original targets for the year. Last June in Minneapolis, we outlined 2008 plans calling for a low single digit sales growth, mid single digit growth in segment operating profits and diluted earnings per share in the range of $3.39 to $3.43 per share. Our actual net sales grew 10%. We were able to counter higher than planned input cost inflation and still deliver 6% segment operating profit growth. And earnings per share came in well above target at $3.71 per share. This figure includes non-cash mark to market and tax gains that Don will talk about in more detail in just a minute. Excluding those gains, EPS would be $3.52, up 11% from last year’s results. This performance met or exceeded the key metrics in our long range growth model. This model isn’t the best we can do in any one year. The model is about the performance we believe we can and should deliver consistently over time. We think this level of compound sales, operating profit and EPS growth combined with a dividend yield of between 2-3% should result in double digit…

Thank you Ken and good morning everyone. I’d like to join Ken in thanking you for being with us this morning. We do appreciate your interest in General Mills. And I’ll start off a few specifics on the fourth quarter then I’ll add to Ken’s comments about annual results and discuss our key financial targets for fiscal 2009 and then I’ll move to a discussion of our three operating segments. General Mills ended fiscal 2008 with a very strong fourth quarter. Net sales were $3.5 billion, up 13%, segment operating profit was up 5%, this included a 20% increase in consumer marketing spending as well as our most significant quarterly percentage increase in input costs for the year. Earnings after tax were $185 million and diluted earnings per share were $0.53. These reported earnings include a reduction of our mark to market valuation of certain commodity positions. This reduction was primarily due to key commodity market price declines from the prevailing levels at the end of the previous quarter. Excluding this mark to market impact which was $0.20 per share in the quarter, fourth quarter diluted EPS would have been $0.73, up 18% from the $0.62 we reported a year ago. Our sales growth for both the quarter and the year reflects positive contributions from volume, price and mix. Volume contributed 3 points of growth in both time periods. Price and mix added 5 points of growth for the year and more in the latest quarter. In addition, foreign exchange gave us two points of growth in both the quarter and the full year. While three of our business segments contributed to the strong top line growth trends, US retail sales were up 9% in the fourth quarter and 7% for the year with good volume contributions in both periods.…

Thanks Chris and good morning everybody. It’s my pleasure to give you an update on our US Retail business. In fiscal 08, US Retail net sales cross the $9 billion mark for the first time and we generated sales growth of almost $600 million, roughly half of the company’s total sales increase for the year. This was a continuation of the top line gains we’ve achieved in recent years. Since 2005 our net sales have increased at a 5% compound rate on a good blend of volume growth, favorable mix and pricing. Our strong growth in 08 was the result of many factors, but I’d highlight three in particular. First, our Big G cereal business had a very fine year, posting sales growth, margin expansion and increased market share. Second, we had a great year on new products. And third, we did a good job driving balances growth with fast growing food retailers. Let me say a bit more about each of these points. One year ago today, Big G implemented the right sized right priced initiatives. That effort combined a low single digit price increase with reductions in our package sizes and shelf prices to better align them with competitive offerings. Year one results from this initiative were excellent. Big G net sales grew 5%, that’s above our goal of low single digit growth. The number of Big G packages sold increased 6% and so Big G pound volume was within a percentage point of last year’s, despite the smaller package sizes. Our trade spending for cereal was down on a per case basis and also down in terms of overall dollars. Meanwhile, Big G’s investment in consumer marketing went up 6%. Operating profits for Big G grew faster than sales. That’s including the consumer marketing increases, plus $30…

Thank you Ian. So we’ve now heard Ian, Chris and Don share details of our growth plans for 2009 and I’d like to conclude our presentation today with a summary of the key factors that we see driving our continuing growth. First and foremost, the categories where we compete are a strategic advantage for General Mills. Consumers around the world today want foods that taste great, are quick and easy to make and offer health and wellness benefits whenever possible. Our major food categories are a great fit with these consumer trends and demands. Because these categories are on trend, they’re growing. In the most recent quarter, consumer takeaway for our major categories in US retail grew 5% overall, including gains of 12% for the yogurt category, 7% for frozen vegetables, 6% for frozen hot snacks. These growth rates are in Nielson measured outlets. Growth including non-measured channels would be even faster. Prices are rising in virtually every food category in the store due to increasing ingredient and energy cost and that’s part of this growth story. But the good sales trends in our categories also reflect the fact that these products are staples in most households. This chart shows the US household penetration for products ranging from ready to eat cereal to grain snacks. As you can see, two-thirds or more of all US households shop each of these categories for their families. Our brands hold leading positions in these attractive food categories. In the US our brands are either number one, or a strong number two in 12 major retail categories across shelf stable, refrigerated and frozen formats. And in 2008, we grew our composite share in these US markets. And as you heard during Chris O’Leary’s presentation, we are growing our sales and share of these categories…

Ready to eat cereal and soup which we’ve taken just very recently. David Palmer – UBS: Could you give additional detail about the magnitude of those at all?

Well what I can tell you is that on cereal it was the price increases across most of the line and is in the low single digit range and we took that increase, I think we announced it within the last week or two weeks. And soup was also within the last few weeks and also low single digits. So those have been announced and are out there. [Unknown Analyst – Unknown Firm]: On the uses of cash, it seemed as though the share repurchases are slowing down a bit in fiscal 09 versus where they’ve been historically and capital expenditure is obviously going up slightly higher, could you talk a little bit about how you think about the uses of cash going forward and particularly acquisitions as well.

As we think about our cash use, we generated this year $1.7 billion in operating cash comparable to what we did last year, the first order of business is to reinvest back in the business. We expect our capital expenditure to average over, you know any multiyear period, just a little under 4% of sales. It was 3.8% in F08. It will go up with our mid single digit growth in sales next year, it will stay in that same 3.8-3.9% range. In terms of the increases for next year, we have some more capacity coming online for some of the growth that we’ve seen in grain snacks and in soup. So we’re putting money behind that. We also have a bit more money behind our HMM initiatives. And that’s what’s driving that. You will also notice that our capital spending for this year at $522 million was lower than what we had been expecting for the year. And that’s really a factor of it was much of our activity was later in the year and that reflects the cash that went out the door. Most of our activity still went on as planned. So many of the bills if you will will come due in F09. So some of that is a bit of shift between the years as well. So the first order of business is a little under 4% of sales on cap ex. Then we have dividends that we expect to growth with earnings as we have, 9% annually over the last couple of years. And we continue to expect to grow that with earnings and that’s in the $500 million plus range annually. And then the balance will go to share repurchases. And you know smaller bolt-on acquisitions like we with Larabar this year and…

Let me address quarter four first. As we signaled at the end of our Q3, we had some historically high grain merchandising profits come through. And grain merchandising to refresh everybody is the vertical integration that we have in our milling around oats and wheats which is really the heritage of the company going back 130-140 years. Because of the run up in wheat costs in the third quarter in January and February, we had some outsized gains which we knew when we reported our Q3 results were going to reverse in the fourth quarter because the wheat market had already come off some at that point. That was the largest contributor, outside of the mark to market reduction, that was the largest contributor in the fourth quarter. And that is primarily in our bakeries and food service division. That’s why most as I said, most of the decline in the, the vast majority of the decline in the gross margin in the fourth quarter was in bakeries and food service. As we look to 09, we think that portion will normalize. Which means we’ll, in bakeries and food service, we’ll earn a little less in 08 than we did in 09, but a more normalized level from a total company standpoint as we look at inflation, cost savings, mix and pricing. As we said, we are targeting to protect our gross margins and give us the opportunity to reinvest in the brands at the same kind of above sales growth levels that we have over the past couple of years. So our clear goal for 09 is to protect our gross margin percentage and grow that with our sales level. [Unknown Analyst – Unknown Firm]: The extra week in 2009, should we think about that being mostly reinvested back into marketing sort of across the year and then Q4 shows all the benefits from that extra week? Is that the way to look at it?

That’s right. As we’ve said before, we plan to, we do have an extra week this year and we are planning to reinvest that margin in brand expansion. [Unknown Analyst – Unknown Firm]: First can you explain the policy and the adoption of the mark to market, it doesn’t seem like other companies in the industry that are more packaged food oriented have adopted this or have nearly the volatility. So why is it that you’re so different?

Our adoption started with F08 and it really went down to the administrative cost of applying FAS 133 or the hedge accounting which became burdensome for the really non-economic benefit of it. It protects if you will the volatility of our P&L but it doesn’t really add any economic value to the accounting of FAS 133. So we decided to move away from it and the markets also became much more volatile which meant some of the correlations in our categories became more difficult to prove which is what drove the administrative cost side. Now what drives that, it’s really four factors, it’s how far out you cover, it’s what kind of pricing you get on that coverage and it’s the vehicles you use and it’s the market price at any point in time. I can’t speak to others’ accounting, but it could well be that their practices are different. They may not have as much coverage, they may not have the same kind of pricing verse the market that we have and they certainly don’t use as much of the derivative coverage that we use which is what drives it. If you have fixed price contracts, you’re not going to have or physical inventory, you’re not going to have the mark to market, it’s when you have the futures contracts and the options in place. And we’ve used those because we’ve found them to be very effective in terms of helping us mitigate the cost. They’ve been very effective in terms of helping us lower cost of taking those positions who don’t have to actually take the physical inventory. And even if you have a fixed price contract with a counter party, there is a risk premium that’s applied to that pricing that’s not imbedded in the options that we take. So we found it to be much more cost effective. And we’ve been using them for years, so they’ve always been part of our way of doing business. The accounting reflection is different, the P&L accounting reflection is different. [Unknown Analyst – Unknown Firm]: So if, let’s say, the expectations of continued volatility and inflation are wrong, do you then have the option to go back to a non-mark to market accounting? Or is it kind of like a LIFO, FIFO thing, where it’s a onetime deal and that’s it and then you have to live with it?

No, if the circumstances change, we could decide to change the treatment for it. But we don’t see that, the administrative costs as we’ve looked at them are not going to recede materially, even if the volatility of the market may recede and it really depends on what instruments you’re using. It’s not just the volatility, that’s a component of it but it’s also the instruments you’re using to do the hedging and it requires both on our accounting staff and on our buyers staff to maintain a lot of records and do a lot of correlations but again it’s not value added from an economic standpoint but is needed to apply the accounting. So we could go back to it, we’ don’t have any intention of going back to it at this point. [Unknown Analyst – Unknown Firm]: So you’re saving money on the admin side but asking us to look through the volatility of adopting this process and we’re helping you do that by delineating out exactly what those mark to market gains and reversals are? Okay. Different question to Ken, one is, ten direct reports, that seems like a lot relative to your peers, do you see a need to change that or is that a good number? Because that seems like a lot of information flow directly into you. And then second, I think unrelated but a lot of companies in the industry are more focused on gross profit dollars at this point yet you seem to be kind of emphasizing, no, we’re gross margin percentage. Why do you think that you’re different in that way?

Well, in terms of the number of reports, no, it feels like, it’s a very comfortable number. Three of those reports have, three reports who have the line operating responsibility for the company so Ian has all of US Retail and he has six or seven division presidents reporting into him. Chris has all of the International, including our JVs and he has a number of reports. And so between those two gentlemen, you have the bulk of the operations of General Mills. And then Jeff Rotsch who’s not here today but who is the head of our global worldwide sales organization has the sales team and the food service division. So that’s all, I think very well concentrated. And then the rest of my direct reports are, I think the ones that you would expect, Don, the CFO, General Counsel, Public Affairs, HR, sure I’ve left something out. But I mean it’s those very traditional functions. And so it doesn’t feel at all burdensome to me and with that concentration of the operating side in three individuals, I think that’s very manageable. Your question on concentration on margin, I mean we’ve just found that that margin piece is something that we can drive visibility to very deeply in the company across all divisions and across all business segments. And that’s the piece that really allows us to bring into the focus the supply chain contribution, the marketing contribution, the top line contribution. I mean that’s the measure we think that gives us the best focus across all those different functions and what we’re finding is that focus on gross margin is doing a number of things for us. It’s generating the fuel that we need, helping us to generate the fuel that we need to drive top line. And of course, if we’re driving and protecting margin, that of course translates into a very healthy bottom line. So it’s just the metric for us that we think that gives us the best visibility and aligns everybody best behind what we’re trying to do as a company around productivity. Andrew Lazar – Lehman Brothers: You talked a lot about the HMM and it’s giving you a lot of firepower which is a good thing. I’m curious if you look across your categories and you think about, I guess the question is, do you think General Mills is keeping pace when we look at net price realization, so the combination of rate increases as well as discounting and such. So do you think General Mills is keeping pace with net price realization on average across your key categories with where the category’s net price realization is? Because on one hand one could look at HMM and say that’s giving you a real competitive advantage, on the other hand one could say you’re also leaving money on the table if you will in an environment where maybe it makes sense to get it while you can.

I think that HMM does we think give us a competitive advantage. And we have many, many people across the company involved in that initiative. We have thousands of HMM initiatives, we have very good visibility as you know, two to three years ahead on the kinds of productivity that we’re expecting to come. And it really is sort of the main stay of our approach to this inflationary period. Now of course we have to price on top of that over the last couple of years in order to protect margins and we’ve done that. But certainly the HMM activity and I think our pricing has generally been in line with what we’ve seen across the categories, but the HMM activity I think gives us a certain amount of flexibility that we think is very beneficial. And these, our brands are they’re big powerhouse mass market consumer brands and we want to keep them as affordable as we can and we’re very aware, as we’ve said in the past of the quality of private label out there and we want to, we’re aware of that choice the consumers are making. So this HMM focus and the productivity that we’re generating I think allows us to keep it all in balance. And balance pricing and our desire for volume growth and our desire to have the fuel to put into increased brand building, it all plays out I think in a very good way for us. But I think the bottom line is that our pricing I think is certainly sort of within the brackets of the category. Andrew Lazar – Lehman Brothers: In US Retail in the third quarter I remember the skew in terms of volume versus pricing, was skewed quite a bit more towards volume and I think there were a lot of questions on that at the time and a lot of that was explained around some of the heavier products, seasonally and what have you. And I think we did see a little bit more of a skew back towards a better balance between pricing and volume. But maybe if you could address that if you’re seeing that go the way you want it to and how we think that’ll play out next year?

That’s quite accurate Andrew. I would say as we think about how the next few years play out, it won’t be too dissimilar but on balance I think we’ll get a little bit more out of both mix and pricing and a little bit less out of pound volume increases particularly in this high inflation year. Terry Bivens – J.P. Morgan: For Don, given the way the grain markets have behaved, I was hoping you could give us a little bit more color now on the size of the grain merchandising operation, perhaps expressed as a portion of overall divisional sales and profits.

We’re not prepared to break out that piece but what I would tell you is that if we look at the F08 performance of bakeries and food service, that the underlying business ex the grain merchandising sustained its profitability from a year ago, its profits from a year ago and the incremental growth came from the profits we earned in grain merchandising. We expect that to more normalize next year and while we’re saying that our expectation this year that the earnings will be flat in F09 versus F08, it really is a combination of that less from grain merchandising and more from our core business. And so we will see the reversal of that trend in F09. But we’re not prepared to start breaking out the grain merchandising piece of that business. Terry Bivens – J.P. Morgan: For Ian, as you know many of us are keenly interested in what you do with Progresso for a variety of reasons. And it looks like you’ve once again have a pretty impressive new product slate as we go into the fall. What I was hoping to get is an indication of how this has been greeted by the retail trade in terms of what kind of shelf space you’re seeing, what kind of out of aisle opportunities perhaps you might do with the new broth line. Just a general question on how is this being received and prospects for that line.

I think our retail customers have been quite delighted by the growth that they’ve seen in the light line in particular I think really hit the bell with not just consumers but also the retailers. So they’ve been very supportive of our initiatives. I will say that generally speaking the impact on shelf space tends to lag the impact on market share, but it does occur, but there is a lag effect, so that our market share has grown faster than our share of shelf. But steadily we improve our share of shelf as well. As it relates to outside the aisle opportunities, we’ve been getting very effective merchandising from our customers. Again they’re particularly excited when you bring great innovation to the marketplace and bring in new users and bring in category growth. And so we’ve enjoyed very strong support by our retail customers. David Driscoll – Citigroup: On restaurant side, you gave some charts in there, I think it was dollar sales and your expectations on different food service channels and restaurant channels. But I’d like to talk about volumes here specifically on that side. Right now what’s the best insight that you can give us in terms of volumes, traffic trends, however you’d like to put it at the restaurant side?

They’re down a little bit. The traffic counts, volume is down maybe 1-2%. So down. Not down a lot but down and in contrast to two or three years ago we might have seen traffic growing at 1-2% a year. So it is down. And that is I think clearly a reflection of the economic environment. And we think what’s happening, the signals are is that fewer people, a little bit fewer people are going into restaurants, a few of those people are, more of those people are going into grocery stores. And that trade down we think is very much apparent to us now. We see it that restaurant data, we see it in what’s happening in, you know what’s happening at Wal-Mart, I think Kroger announced their results in the last couple of days ahead of expectations, their same store sales were up by 6%. They talked about good customer counts. So I think there are signals out there that there’s a little bit of a shift away from food away from home and to the grocery store. David Driscoll – Citigroup: Critically, do you see the negative trends in restaurants accelerating?

Well it’s very hard to say. I mean we saw, we had a similar sort of recessionary period if you will post 9/11 and which was a cataclysmic event and the economy softened. So we saw food away from home drop off by I think similar amounts, 2-4% declines in count. It may decelerate a bit but I personally think that food away from home at $0.5 billion is very deeply ingrained and entrenched behavior in the US economy and I think that it will hold up in its own way. But right now it’s a little soft and the grocers are benefiting from that. David Driscoll – Citigroup: Can I then get you guys to reconcile Ian’s comment a moment ago about price, mix and volume and the fact that you’re looking for a little less volume I think is what you just said Ian, but given what seems to be a worsening trend on the restaurant side, theoretically pushing volumes back to the grocery store, it doesn’t seem intuitive to me your comment.

Well I think that’s a fair push back actually. I will tell you that the reason we expect a little bit less is based on all our elasticity models and various things we’ve worked over years as we’ve been taking pricing, we expect that to have some impact on volume off take. The thing that may surprise us which is I think is an upside is the macro trend of movement towards eating at home if it’s in a large degree may counter more greatly than we’ve modeled the micro trend of the elasticity of our pricing. And that remains to be seen, but we’ve approached our planning for the year on probably a more conservative basis where we expect to, and this is on balance, but we expect on balance to achieve terrific sales results but do it with a little bit more mix, a little bit more pricing and a little bit less volume. It may play out differently for the reasons you just stated. Robert Moskow – Credit Suisse: Can you remind us a little bit about compensation and what are the metrics that you use? I believe its profit growth but there’s also a market share component to it. The reason I mention market share is that I also remember a couple of years ago I think Steve Sanger kind of dismissed market share in breakfast cereals because it was so hard to measure. So to what extent is compensation at General Mills driven by profit growth, sales growth and market share?

Corporately we, going back a few years, we had a number of measures that were sort of incorporated into our overall assessment of the corporate rating and incentive rating. Three years ago we simplified that and today we’re evaluated on net sales growth, operating profit, earnings per share growth and return on capital growth. So four measures equally weighted, very highly focused, it’s very clear. And those measures were selected as we looked across our industry and our peer set and said look these are the measures that are most closely correlated with total shareholder return. And so we think it’s been very beneficial to simplify and focus that corporate incentive grid as we call it. Now as you go down deeper into the organization, the incentive grid is equally simplified because we found that getting people focused on a few things is very, very good, but can vary and has additional components. And so in all of our retail divisions, all of Ian’s retail divisions, market share is a key component of their performance as well, along with earnings. And so as you get down to that level where they’re driving the net sales and they’ve got the category accountability, we very much have share as a measure.

I just want to build on that, Ken what we’re doing in upcoming years with our operating division is we’re, in the component that’s market share based is where we are discretely treating measured channels and then looking at growth rates since we don’t get share data in the unmeasured channels but we can guesstimate what kind of growth rate is required to get share gains. And so they have in their divisional objective both a share component for measured channels and a growth rate that is tied to share conceptually in the unmeasured channel.

And I will tell you that our, as you would expect, our Board is very, very focused on our four corporate measures of course. They’re also very highly focused on divisional performance against those market share objectives. So I think there’s very strong alignment and focus inside the company on market share. Eric Serotta – Merrill Lynch: For Don and Chris with respect to the JV income and cash flow. Clearly the JV line on the P&L is becoming or has become a much larger contributor to earnings. In terms of your guidance for fiscal 09, you’re looking for it to be about flat year on year. Even when you adjust for the, I think it was an $8 million gain in fiscal 08, it seems to imply some slowdown in profit growth from your joint ventures. Could you explain what’s behind that?

We intend on CPW we are, we’re not planning on a slowdown in earnings growth coming out of CPW. Our Haagen-Dazs Japan we’re coming off of a very strong year, so that’s slightly less growth, although positive. So we’re anticipating a continuation of the momentum in both of those units which are the majority of the JV line. Then there’s two other very small Haagen-Dazs JVs. Chris O’Leary: Also the other is that obviously in our plan for next year, little to no FX benefit, just like in our International wholly owned business we’ve seen in our JV business as well.

On the cash piece, that’s an important concept to get across because with CPW, we and Nestle have a policy that we remit out as dividends all of the earnings that we can, all of the remittable earnings. And we have the same with our partner in the Haagen-Dazs Japan JV as well. So we see a steady stream of dividends. You saw a little bit of movement year to year and that primarily related to the fact that in F07 as we were undertaking the restructuring in the UK, there were some funds that were needed. So we limited the dividend that paid out rather than have a dividend and put the capital back in, we just limited the dividend for the year and then we started catching up with that this year. And then we also advanced some money to the JVs via intercompany loans rather than capital infusions and those loans we’ve been able to get back out. Again the biggest item in F08 was that we had a property sale as we were finishing up the restructuring in the UK, we had a gain on a property sale that was the $8 million gain. All the cash that was associated with that also came back to us as well. But I think probably the most important line on the chart that Chris showed was that dividend stream and our policy on both our large JVs is to dividend back to the parents all the remittable earnings so that we don’t build up cash in the JVs. Eric Serotta – Merrill Lynch: My question was going to go to, it seems like the growth in that dividend line, I realize there are reasons for the volatility in some of the others lines and even the dividend line in fiscal 07, but the growth from fiscal 06 to fiscal 08 period, from $77million to $83 million was clearly below the rate of ongoing JV earnings that you have in the line below. How do you see that unfolding over the next several years? Should we expect growth in cash flow or dividends from JVs to be more in line with the growth in earnings from the JVs?

I think it will be more in line with earnings and maybe a little bit ahead of earnings. It also is a country by country, so you can’t look at it as a total JV, so if we have countries where we’re investing, we have losses and may not be able to pull cash out, other markets where we have profits we’re able to pull cash out more readily, we have the earnings. It also depends on what the cumulative state of play is at any given country and what your remittable earnings are. But over time as the amount of core markets or established markets within CPW gets greater and greater weight, you’re going to see a more close alignment between our dividends and our earnings. So over time those numbers should move in sync, with again the dividends probably increasing a little bit faster in the near term than the earnings. Eric Serotta – Merrill Lynch: In terms of the overall top line contribution, I think Andrew touched upon the shift back to being more price mix weighted than volume weighted as it was in the previous quarters, could you sort of talk about the components between price and mix, how much of this was with price versus trade spending reductions versus other forms of taking price like you did in Big G versus mix improvement for the year and for the quarter?

For the year, obviously we had all those with right sized, right priced being effectively a price increase realized very early in the year with no change, actually a reduction in some prices but effectively a price increase. And that I think for the fiscal year kind of skewed a lot of the data given the size and scale of the cereal in our data. I would answer your question maybe more generally that it is fairly well balanced I would say between list price and or reduction in the level of discounting through the trade expense line. And also I would say we were realizing roughly similar amounts between mix and between pricing in that bucket. Going forward we’ll continue to use whatever makes the most sense in each category and it really is a category by category decision and some categories it will be, well this year we’ve announced pretty much list pricing across the board, so there’s definitely more list pricing that’s had to go on. But in some categories we rely even more on a reduction in discounting or trade expense if they’re heavily traded categories and we see that opportunity. And we don’t have anything of the scale of right sized right priced in terms of using package configuration changes in this upcoming here. Ken Zaslow – BMO Capital Markets: Chris if I look at your international growth outlook for fiscal 10, it looks like it’s only another 10% or so up from fiscal 08 on a compounded annual growth rate. I’d expect as General Mills leverages its infrastructure, that growth rate would actually continue to accelerate almost like what we saw this year. What would it take for you to revise your fiscal 10 international growth rate higher? Chris O’Leary: What I would say is we have outpaced the last few years so it is making the 2010 goal infinitely more achievable. And I would say that I’ll look to Don and others on when we need to change our external guidance. But we are planning to moving forward grow at the same type of rates that we’ve been achieving historically. The reason why the 2010 goal looks achievable or easy, whatever it is is because we’ve outperformed the last couple of years and we have yet to revise that guidance.

You might make that comment generally about the total company performance and how that’s looking relative to those five year goals that we set out a few years ago and we’ve outperformed the last several years and are getting close to that 2010 goal. So as we go into our long range planning process here at the end of the summer and in the fall, that will be a great time for us to reevaluate and have a fresh look at those goals and we’ll see where we come out. But clearly we’ve outperformed them over the last couple years across the company. Ken Zaslow – BMO Capital Markets: You discussed this iconic brands, taking them to new categories, which brands would you expect to have even more category expansion, which categories would you expect to even go another [length] into, for example you’re taking Fiber One into the toaster pastries. So is that some of that could go even more global. What are views on some iconic brands that you have that can go into other categories?

We wouldn’t want to talk about specifics because we never really talk about what our new product plans might be. But the fact is is that we have a lot of big iconic brands that we’re demonstrating I think through our actions over the past several years that our brands, many of them are very extendable into different categories. And so it’s a strategy that has worked for us, it has worked very well with Fiber One, it’s worked very well with some of our cereal brands which have gone into different snacking formats. So that’s a strategy that works. You guys, you could go down and list yourself some other really big brands that we have that are appealing to consumers and imagine how those might stretch and we’re doing that same exercise with a great deal of discipline, lots of people looking at it and working on it and we just think that that will be something that we’ll continue to do going forward.

The only generality I’d make with all of that is when a brand is particularly well positioned it makes it highly, in an odd way, it makes it highly extendable, Fiber One being a great example where it really stands for such great taste you can hardly believe there’s fiber in it. You can bring that fiber benefit and that taste benefit to almost a limitless amount of categories and indeed that’s being expanded rapidly. But you can go through our list of equities from Yoplait to Green Giant to the culinary nature of Progresso to the entire list and I don’t think it’s too hard to envision ways that some of these great brand names that are trusted and known in specific categories, their ability to broaden their shoulders and carry equity to new areas is really how we go about it.

Ken do you want to say goodbye to the webcast listeners and wrap this up?

Yes, goodbye to the webcast listeners, thank you for joining us this morning. Thanks again to all of you for your attendance this morning, for your interest in General Mills. We greatly appreciate you being here and thanks to all of you. Good morning.