UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrantþ

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant¨

Check the appropriate box:

¨
Filed by the Registrant   x
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant   o
Check the appropriate box:

oPreliminary Proxy Statement
¨oConfidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
þxDefinitive Proxy Statement
¨oDefinitive Additional Materials
¨oSoliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY


(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)


(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

þ
xNo fee required.
¨oFee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4)(1) and 0-11.

(1)

 1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

(2)

 2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:


(3)

 3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):


(4)

 4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:


(5)

 5) Total fee paid:


 

o¨Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

¨
oCheck box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

(1)

Amount Previously Paid:

(2)

      1) Amount Previously Paid:


       2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:


(3)

 3) Filing Party:


(4)

 4) Date Filed:


SEC 1913 (02-02)Persons who are to respond to the collection of information contained in this form are not required to respond unless the form displays a currently valid OMB control number.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY

4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, Illinois62526-5666

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING

To All Stockholders:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, a Delaware corporation, will be held at the JAMES R. RANDALL RESEARCH CENTER located at 1001 Brush College Road, Decatur, Illinois, on Thursday, November 4, 2010, May 2, 2013,commencing at 10:8:30 A.M.A.M., for the following purposes:

(1) To elect Directors to hold office until the next Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their successors are duly elected and qualified;

(2) To ratify the appointment by the Board of Directors of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors to audit the accounts of the Company for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011;

December 31, 2013;

(3) If properly presented, toTo consider and act uponan advisory vote on the Stockholders’ proposals set forth in the accompanying Proxy Statement;compensation of our named executive officers; and

(4) To transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting.

By Order of the Board of Directors
LOGO
M. I. SMITH, SECRETARY

March 22, 2013

By Order of the Board of Directors
-s- D.J. Smith
D. J. S

mith, Secretary

September 24, 2010
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE STOCKHOLDER MEETING TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 2010:MAY 2, 2013: THE PROXY STATEMENT AND ANNUAL REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS ARE AVAILABLE AT www.adm.com/proxy


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY

4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, Illinois62526-5666

September 24, 2010

March 22, 2013

PROXY STATEMENT

General Matters

Our board of directors asks that you complete the accompanying proxy for the annual stockholders’ meeting. The meeting will be held at the time, place, and location mentioned in the Notice of Annual Meeting included in this mailing. We are first mailing our stockholders this proxy statement and a proxy form (included in this mailing) around September 24, 2010.

March 22, 2013.

Although we have historically held our annual stockholders’ meeting in November, because of the recent change of our fiscal year end from June 30 to December 31, the scheduling of this year’s annual meeting approximately six months after our 2012 annual meeting reflects our transition to a calendar year based financial reporting cycle. As a result, much of the information in this proxy statement, particularly information relating to executive compensation matters, relates to the six-month “transitional” period of July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Throughout this proxy statement , we sometimes refer to such six-month transitional period as “Fiscal Year 2012.5” or “FY2012.5”.

We pay the costs of soliciting proxies from our stockholders. We have retained Georgeson Inc. to help us solicit proxies. We will pay Georgeson Inc. $23,000$24,000 plus reasonable expenses for its services. Our officers may solicit proxies by means other than mail. Our other employees or employees of Georgeson Inc. may also solicit proxies in person or by telephone, mail, or the internet at a cost we expect will be nominal. We will reimburse brokerage firms and other securities custodians for their reasonable expenses in forwarding proxy materials to their principals.

We have a policy of keeping confidential all proxies, ballots, and voting tabulations that identify individual stockholders. Such documents are available for examination only by the inspectors of election, our transfer agent and certain employees associated with processing proxy cards and tabulating the vote. We will not disclose any stockholder’s vote except in a contested proxy solicitation or as may be necessary to meet legal requirements.

Our common stock stockholders of record at the close of business on September 9, 2010,March 11, 2013, are the only people entitled to notice of the annual meeting and to vote at the meeting. At the close of business on September 9, 2010,March 11, 2013, we had 638,683,623658,791,626 outstanding shares of common stock, each share being entitled to one vote on each of the tentwelve director nominees and on each of the other matters to be voted on at the meeting. Our stockholders are the only people entitled to attend the annual meeting. We reserve the right to direct stockholder representatives with the proper documentation to an alternative room to observe the meeting.

All stockholders will need a form of photo identification to attend the annual meeting. If you are a stockholder of record and plan to attend, please detach the admission ticket from the top of your proxy card and bring it with you to the meeting. The number of people we will admit to the meeting will be determined by how the shares are registered, as indicated on the admission ticket. If you are a stockholder whose shares are held by a broker, bank, or other nominee, please request an admission ticket by writing to our office at Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Shareholder Relations, 4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, Illinois62526-5666. Your letter to our office must include evidence of your stock ownership. You can obtain evidence of ownership from your broker, bank, or nominee. The number of tickets sent will be determined by the manner in which shares are registered. If your request is received by October 21, 2010,April 18, 2013, an admission ticket will be mailed to you. Entities, such as a corporation or limited liability company, that are stockholders may send one representative to the annual meeting and the representative should have a pre-existing relationship with the entity represented. All other admission tickets can be obtained at the registration table located at the James R. Randall Research Center lobby beginning at 8:7:30 A.M. on the day of the meeting. Stockholders who do not pre-register will only be admitted to the meeting upon verification of stock ownership.


The use of cameras, video or audio recorders or other recording devices in the James R. Randall Research Center is prohibited. The display of posters, signs, banners or any other type of signage by any stockholder in the James R. Randall Research Center is prohibited.


Any request to deviate from the admittance guidelines described above shouldmust be in writing, addressed to our office at Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Secretary, 4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, Illinois62526-5666 and received by us by October 21, 2010.April 18, 2013. We will also have personnel in the lobby of the James R. Randall Research Center beginning at 8:7:30 A.M. on the day of the meeting to consider special requests.

If you properly execute the enclosed proxy form, your shares will be voted at the meeting. You may revoke your proxy form at any time prior to voting by:

(1) delivering written notice of revocation to our Secretary;
(2) delivering to our Secretary a new proxy form bearing a date later than your previous proxy; or
(3) attending the meeting and voting in person (attendance at the meeting will not, by itself, revoke a proxy).

(1)delivering written notice of revocation to our Secretary;

(2)delivering to our Secretary a new proxy form bearing a date later than your previous proxy; or

(3)attending the meeting and voting in person (attendance at the meeting will not, by itself, revoke a proxy).

Under our bylaws, directors are elected by a majority vote in an uncontested election (one in which the number of nominees is the same as the number of directors to be elected) and by a plurality vote in a contested election (one in which the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected). Because this year’s election is an uncontested election, each director nominee receiving a majority of votes cast will be elected (the number of shares voted “for” a director nominee must exceed the number of shares voted “against” that nominee). Approval of each other proposal presented in the proxy statement requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock present in person or by proxy at the meeting and entitled to vote. Shares not present at the meeting and shares voting “abstain” have no effect on the election of directors. For the other proposals to be voted on at the meeting, abstentions are treated as shares present or represented and voting, and therefore have the same effect as negative votes. Broker non-votes (shares held by brokers who do not have discretionary authority to vote on the matter and have not received voting instructions from their clients) are counted toward a quorum, but are not counted for any purpose in determining whether a matter has been approved.

Principal Holders of Voting Securities

Based upon filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)(“SEC”), we know that the following stockholders are beneficial owners of more than 5% of our outstanding common stock shares:

         
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner
 Amount  Percent of Class 
 
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company  56,563,239(1)  8.86 
and related entities
One State Farm Plaza
Bloomington, IL 61710
        
BlackRock, Inc.   42,589,894(2)  6.67 
40 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022
        
AXA Financial Inc.   35,610,581(3)  5.58 
and related entities
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
        

Name and Address of Beneficial Owner

  Amount  Percent of Class 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

and related entities

One State Farm Plaza

Bloomington, IL 61710

   56,596,782(1)   8.59  

The Vanguard Group

100 Vanguard Blvd.

Malvern, PA 19355

   33,286,944(2)   5.05  

(1)Based on a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 2, 2010,17, 2013, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and related entities have shared voting and dispositive power with respect to 268,497302,040 shares and sole voting and dispositive power with respect to 56,294,742 shares.
(2)Based on a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on January 29, 2010, BlackRock Inc. has sole voting and dispositive power with respect to 42,589,894 shares.
(3)Based on a Schedule 13G13G/A filed with the SEC on February 12, 2010, AXA Financial Inc. and related entities have22, 2013, The Vanguard Group has sole voting power with respect to 28,954,2201,122,981 shares, and sole dispositive power with respect to 35,610,58132,170,018 shares, and shared dispositive power with respect to 1,116,926 shares.


2


Proposal No. 1 — Election of Directors for a One-Year Term

Our board of directors has fixed the size of the board at ten.twelve. Unless you provide different directions, we intend for board-solicited proxies (like this one) to be voted for the nominees named below.

Although

All of the nominees proposed for election to the board of directors are all presently members of the board Mr. Dufour has notand have previously been elected by our stockholders. Mr. Dufour was identified by

If elected, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee as a potential nominee and was recommended by theNominating/Corporate Governance Committee after such committee completed its interview and vetting process with respect to Mr. Dufour.

The nominees would hold office until the next annual stockholders’ meeting and until their successors are elected and qualified. If any nominee for director becomes unable to serve as a director, we intend that the persons named in the proxy may vote for a substitute who will be designated by the board of directors. Alternatively, the board of directors could reduce the size of the board. The board has no reason to believe that any nominee will be unable to serve as a director.

Our bylaws were amended in February 2007 to require that each director be elected by a majority of votes cast with respect to that director in an uncontested election (where the number of nominees is the same as the number of directors to be elected). In a contested election (where the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected), the plurality voting standard governs the election of directors. Under the plurality standard, the number of personsnominees equal to the number of directors to be elected who receive more votes than the other nominees are elected to the board, regardless of whether they receive a majority of the votes cast. Whether an election is contested or not is determined as of the day before we first mail our meeting notice to stockholders. This year’s election was determined to be an uncontested election, and the majority vote standard will apply. If a nominee who is serving as a director is not elected at the annual meeting, Delaware law provides that the director would continue to serve on the board as a “holdover director.” However, under an amendment to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, approved by our board in February 2007, each director annually submits an advance, contingent, irrevocable resignation that the board may accept if the director fails to be elected through a majority vote in an uncontested election. In that situation, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee would make a recommendation to the board about whether to accept or reject the resignation. The board will act on the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation and publicly disclose its decision and the rationale behind it within 90 days after the date the election results are certified. The board will nominate for election or re-election as director, and will elect as directors to fill vacancies and new directorships, only candidates who agree to tender the form of resignation described above. If a nominee who was not already serving as a director fails to receive a majority of votes cast at the annual meeting, Delaware law provides that the nominee does not serve on the board as a “holdover director.”


3


The table below lists the nominees, their ages, positions with our company, principal occupations, current directorships of other publicly-owned companies, directorships of other publicly-owned companies held within the past five years, the year in which each first was elected as a director, and the number of shares of common stock beneficially owned as of September 9, 2010,March 11, 2013, directly or indirectly. Unless otherwise indicated in the footnotes to the following table, and subject to community property laws where applicable, we believe that each nominee named in the table below has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares indicated as beneficially owned. Unless otherwise indicated, all of the nominees have been executive officers of their respective companies or employed as otherwise specified below for at least the last five years.
           
  Year First
      
Name, Age, Principal Occupation or
 Elected
  Common
  Percent
Position, Directorships of Other
 as
  Stock
  of
Publicly-Owned Companies
 Director  Owned  Class
 
George W. Buckley, 63  2008   17,062(1) *
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of 3M Company (a diversified technology company) since December, 2005; Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Brunswick Corporation (a global manufacturer and marketer of recreation products) from 2000 - December, 2005; Director of 3M Company and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.; Director of Ingersoll-Rand plc and Tyco Corporation within the past five years.          
Mollie Hale Carter, 48  1996   11,742,899(1)(2) 1.84
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, Sunflower Bank and Vice President, Star A, Inc. (a farming and ranching operation); Director of Westar Energy, Inc.; Director of Premium Standard Farms, Inc. within the past five years.          
Pierre Dufour, 55      4,446(1)(3) *
Senior Executive Vice President of Air Liquide Group (a leading provider of gases for industry, health and the environment) since November, 2007; Executive Vice President of Air Liquide Group since 2002.          
Donald E. Felsinger, 62  2009   7,998(1) *
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Sempra Energy (an energy services company) since February, 2006; President and Chief Operating Officer of Sempra Energy beginning in January, 2005; Director of Northrup Grumman Corporation.          
Victoria F. Haynes, 62  2007   11,772(1) *
President and Chief Executive Officer of RTI International (an independent, non-profit corporation that performs scientific research and develops technology); Director of PPG Industries, Inc. and Nucor Corporation; Director of The Lubrizol Corporation within the past five years.          
Antonio Maciel Neto, 53  2006   15,971(1) *
Chief Executive Officer of Suzano Papel e Celulose (a Brazilian paper and pulp company) since June, 2006; President of Ford Brazil from July, 1999 - October, 2003; President of Ford South America from October, 2003 - April, 2006; Director of Marfrig Alimentos S.A.          
Patrick J. Moore, 56  2003   43,210(1) *
Chief Executive Officer and Director of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation (a producer of paperboard and paper-based packaging products)(4).          
Thomas F. O’Neill, 63  2004   21,620(1) *
Principal, Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L.P. (an investment banking firm); Director of The Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc. and Misonix, Inc.          
Kelvin R. Westbrook, 55  2003   40,124(1) *
President and Chief Executive Officer of KRW Advisors, LLC (a consulting and advisory firm) since October, 2007; Chairman and Chief Strategic Officer of Millennium Digital Media Systems, L.L.C. (a broadband services company) (“MDM”)(5) from approximately September, 2006 - October, 2007; President and Chief Executive Officer of Millennium Digital Media, L.L.C. from May 1997 - October, 2006; Director of Stifel Financial Corp. and Trust Manager of Camden Property Trust; Director of Angelica Corporation within the past five years.          
Patricia A. Woertz, 57  2006   1,236,161(6) *
Chairman since February 2007; President and Chief Executive Officer since May 2006; previously Executive Vice President of Chevron Corporation (a diversified energy company); Director of The Procter & Gamble Company.          


Name, Age, Principal Occupation or

Position, Directorships of Other

Publicly-Owned Companies

  Year First
Elected
as
Director
   Common
Stock

Owned
  Percent
of
Class
 

Alan L. Boeckmann, 64

Non-Executive Chairman of Fluor Corporation (an engineering and construction firm) from February, 2011 – February, 2012; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fluor Corporation from February, 2002 – February, 2011; Director of Sempra Energy; Director of BHP Billiton and Burlington Northern Santa Fe within the past five years.

   2012     8,068(1)   *  

George W. Buckley, 66

Chairman of Arle Capital Partners Limited (a private equity partnership) since February, 2012; Chairman of Expro International (an international oil field services company) since June, 2012; Chairman of 3M Company (a diversified technology company) from February, 2012 – June, 2012; Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of 3M Company from December, 2005 – February, 2012; Director of Hitachi, Ltd., PepsiCo. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

   2008     33,197(1)   *  

Mollie Hale Carter, 50

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, Sunflower Bank and Vice President, Star A, Inc. (a farming and ranching operation); Director of Westar Energy, Inc.

   1996     12,101,779(2)   1.84  

Terrell K. Crews, 57

Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Vegetable Business Chief Executive Officer of Monsanto Company (an agricultural company) from September, 2007 – November, 2009; Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Monsanto Company from 2000 – 2007; Director of Rock-Tenn Company and Hormel Foods Corporation; Director of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation within the past five years.

   2011     8,212(3)   *  

Pierre Dufour, 57

Senior Executive Vice President of Air Liquide Group (a leading provider of gases for industry, health and the environment) since November, 2007; Executive Vice President of Air Liquide Group since 2002; Director of Air Liquide S.A.

   2010     17,347(4)   *  

Donald E. Felsinger, 65

Executive Chairman of Sempra Energy (an energy services company) from June, 2011 – December, 2012; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Sempra Energy from February, 2006 – June, 2011; President and Chief Operating Officer of Sempra Energy beginning in January, 2005; Director of Northrup Grumman Corporation.

   2009     30,136(1)   *  

Antonio Maciel Neto, 55

Chief Executive Officer of CAOA Group (a Brazilian vehicle distributor and manufacturer) since March, 2013; Chief Executive Officer of Suzano Papel e Celulose (a Brazilian paper and pulp company) from June, 2006 – January, 2013; President of Ford South America from October, 2003 – April, 2006; President of Ford Brazil from July, 1999 – October, 2003; Director of Marfrig Alimentos S.A.

   2006     27,660(1)   *  

4


Name, Age, Principal Occupation or

Position, Directorships of Other

Publicly-Owned Companies

  Year First
Elected
as
Director
   Common
Stock

Owned
  Percent
of
Class
 

Patrick J. Moore, 58

President and Chief Executive Officer of PJM Advisors, LLC (an investment and advisory firm) since June, 2011; Chief Executive Officer of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation from June, 2010 – May, 2011; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation from 2002 – June, 2010; Director of ITT Exelis and Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.; Director of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation within the past five years(5).

   2003     45,733(1)   *  

Thomas F. O’Neill, 66

Chairman of the holding company of First Allied (a broker dealer) and Chairman of Ranieri Partners Financial Services Group (a company which acquires and manages financial services companies) since November, 2010; Principal, Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L.P. from 1988 – November, 2010; Director of The Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc. and Misonix, Inc.

   2004     33,602(1)   *  

Daniel Shih, 61

Deputy Chairman, Executive Director and Chief Strategy Officer of Stella International Holdings Limited (a developer and manufacturer of footwear) since May, 2008; Chairman of PepsiCo (China) Investment Ltd. and President, PepsiCo Beverages, China from October, 2006 – April, 2008.

   2012     763(1)   *  

Kelvin R. Westbrook, 57

President and Chief Executive Officer of KRW Advisors, LLC (a consulting and advisory firm) since October, 2007; Chairman and Chief Strategic Officer of Millennium Digital Media Systems, L.L.C. (a broadband services company) (“MDM”)(6) from approximately September, 2006 – October, 2007; President and Chief Executive Officer of Millennium Digital Media, L.L.C. from May 1997 – October, 2006; Director of Stifel Financial Corp. and Trust Manager of Camden Property Trust; Director of Angelica Corporation within the past five years.

   2003     47,058(1)   *  

Patricia A. Woertz, 60

Chairman since February 2007; President and Chief Executive Officer since May 2006; previously Executive Vice President of Chevron Corporation (a diversified energy company); Director of The Procter & Gamble Company.

   2006     2,243,796(7)   *  

*Less than 1% of outstanding shares
(1)Includes only stock units allocated under our Stock Unit Plan for Nonemployee Directors that are deemed to be the equivalent of outstanding shares of common stock for valuation purposes.
(2)Includes 2,715,9003,065,707 shares held in a family foundation or owned by or in trust for members of Ms. Carter’s family, and 8,918,000 shares held in a limited partnership.partnership and 118,072 stock units allocated under our Stock Unit Plan for Nonemployee Directors.
(3)Includes 3,700760 shares owned individually.individually and 7,452 stock units allocated under our Stock Unit Plan for Nonemployee Directors.
(4)Includes 5,700 shares owned individually and 11,647 stock units allocated under our Stock Unit Plan for Nonemployee Directors.
(5)Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation and its U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in January 2009.
(5)(6)Broadstripe, LLC (formerly MDM) and certain of its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in January, 2009, approximately fifteen months after Mr. Westbrook resigned from MDM.
(6)(7)Includes 570,668915,261 shares owned individually or in trust, 1,327,875 shares that are unissued but are subject to stock options exercisable within 60 days and 628660 shares allocated under our 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

The Board of Directors recommends a voteFOR the election of the tentwelve nominees named above as directors. Unless otherwise indicated on your proxy, your sharesProxies solicited by the Board will be so votedFOR the election of such ten nominees as directors. unless stockholders specify a different choice.

Director Experiences, Qualifications, Attributes and Skills, and Board Diversity

In assessing an individual’s qualifications to become a member of the board, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee may consider various factors including education, experience, judgment, independence,

5


integrity, availability, and other factors that the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee deems appropriate. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee strives to recommend candidates that complement the current board members and other proposed nominees so as to further the objective of having a board that reflects a diversity of background and experience with the necessary skills to effectively perform the functions of the board and its committees. In addition, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee considers personal characteristics of nominees and current board members, including race, gender and geographic origin, in an effort to obtain a diversity of perspectives on the board.

The specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills with respect tothat qualify each of our directors to serve on our board are listed below:

Alan L. Boeckmann

Prior to retiring in February, 2012, Mr. Boeckmann served in a variety of engineering and executive management positions during his 35-plus year career with Fluor Corporation, including non-executive Chairman of the Board from 2011-2012, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer from 2002-2011, and President and Chief Operating Officer from 2001-2002. His tenure with Fluor Corporation included responsibility for global operations and multiple international assignments. Mr. Boeckmann currently serves as a director of Sempra Energy. He has previously served on the boards of BHP Billiton and Burlington-Northern Santa Fe. Mr. Boeckmann has been an outspoken business leader in promoting international standards for business ethics. His extensive board and executive management experience, coupled with his commitment to ethical conduct in international business activities, makes him a valuable addition to our board of directors.

George W. Buckley

Dr. Buckley becameis Chairman of Arle Capital Partners Limited, a private equity partnership with a portfolio of energy, industrial and service-sector businesses. Dr. Buckley is also currently Chairman of Expro International, an international oil field services company. Previously, Dr. Buckley served as Chairman of 3M Company from February 2012 to June 2012 and as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of 3M Company infrom December 2005 and heto February 2012. He previously held executive positions at Brunswick Corp., Emerson Electric Co. and British Railways. Dr. Buckley’s Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and his Doctoral degree in Engineering in joint study at Huddersfield and Southampton Universities, his service as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of 3M Company, his leadership roles at the Brunswick Corporation, Emerson Electric Co. and British Railways, his skills in business and financial matters and his experience as a director of the public companies listed above, qualify him to serve as a director of ourthe company.

Mollie Hale Carter

Ms. Carter has twenty-threetwenty-five years of business experience in the agricultural sector, including consulting, finance and operations. Ms. Carter also has served since 1995 as the Chairmanand/or Chief Executive Officer of a regional financial institution based in Salina, Kansas. Ms. Carter’s qualifications to serve as a director of ourthe company include her substantial leadership experience as a chief executive officer, her financial expertise, her service as a director of Westar Energy, Inc., her previous service as a director of Premium Standard Farms, Inc., and her significant experience in the agricultural sector.


5Terrell K. Crews

Mr. Crews retired from Monsanto Company in November 2009. He served as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Vegetable Business CEO for Monsanto Company from September 2007 to November 2009, and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from 2000 to 2007. Mr. Crews brings to our board of directors extensive expertise in finance and related functions, as well as significant knowledge of corporate development, agri-business and international operations.

6


Pierre Dufour

Mr. Dufour is Senior Executive Vice President of Air Liquide Group, the world leader in gases for industry, health and the environment. Having joined Air Liquide in 1997, Mr. Dufour was named Senior Executive Vice President in November 2007. Since January 2010, he has supervised Air Liquide’s operations in the Americas, Africa-Middle East and Asia-Pacific zones, while also overseeing, globally, Air Liquide’s industrial World Business Lines, Engineering and Construction. Mr. Dufour was elected to the board of Air Liquide S.A. in May, 2012. Mr. Dufour’s qualifications to serve as a director of our company include his substantial leadership, engineering, operations management and international business experience.

Donald E. Felsinger

Mr. Felsinger brings extensive experience as a board member, chair and CEO with Fortune 500 companies. Mr. Felsinger retired as Executive Chairman of Sempra Energy on December 1, 2012. His leadership roles at Sempra Energy and other energy companies have allowed him to provide our board of directors with his expertise in mergers and acquisitions, environmental matters, corporate governance, strategic planning, engineering, finance, human resources, compliance, risk management, international business and public affairs. Mr. Felsinger possesses in-depth knowledge of executive compensation and benefits practices and serves as a member of the Compensation/Succession Committee.

Victoria F. HaynesAntonio Maciel Neto

Dr. Haynes has served since July 1999 as President and

Mr. Maciel was named Chief Executive Officer of RTI International. Prior to joining RTI, she was Vice President of the Advanced TechnologyCAOA Group, a large Brazilian vehicle distributor and Chief Technical Officer of Goodrich Corporation, a specialty chemicals and aerospace company, from 1992 to 1999. Dr. Haynes brings more than 30 years of experiencemanufacturer, in technology leadership, management and new business development to our board of directors.

Antonio Maciel Neto
March 2013. Mr. Maciel has beenserved as Chief Executive Officer of Suzano Papel e Celulose S/A, one of Latin America’s largest vertically integrated producers of paper and eucalyptus pulp, sincefrom June 2006.2006 to January 2013. From 1999 to May 2006, Mr. Maciel held various executive positions with Ford Motor Company, including Chief Executive Officer of Ford South America Operations. Mr. Maciel’s qualifications to serve on our company’s board of directors include his substantial leadership, international business, environmental and sustainability, engineering, product development and innovations and operations management experience.

Patrick J. Moore

Mr. Moore has beenretired as Chief Executive Officer of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation since 2003,in 2011, and has held positions of increasing importance at Smurfit-Stone and related companies since 1987. Prior to 1987, Mr. Moore served 12 years at Continental Bank in various corporate lending, international banking and administrative positions. Mr. Moore brings to our board of directors his substantial experience in leadership, banking and finance, strategy development, sustainability and operations management.

Thomas F. O’Neill

Mr. O’Neill has worked on Wall Street since 1972 and, as a founding principal of a nationally-recognized investment bank, he has broad experience in the areas of finance, mergers and acquisitions and business development. Mr. O’Neill specializes in working with financial institutions and his substantial experience in the finance community contributes to his role as chaira member of the Audit Committee.

Daniel Shih

Mr. Shih has served as Deputy Chairman, Executive Director and Chief Strategy Officer of Stella International Holdings Limited, a company listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, since May, 2008. He previously held executive positions with PepsiCo (China) Investment Ltd. and Motorola (China) Electronic Ltd. Mr. Shih’s qualifications to serve as a director of the company include his extensive business experience in Asia and his expertise in business strategy, leadership development, joint ventures and mergers and acquisitions.

7


Kelvin R. Westbrook

Mr. Westbrook brings legal, media and marketing expertise to the board of directors. He is a former partner of a national law firm, was the President, Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of two large cable television and broadband companies and was or is a member of the board of numerous high-profile companies,


6


including the National Cable Satellite Corporation, better known as C-SPAN. Mr. Westbrook currently serves on the boards of two other public companies and a multi-billion dollarnot-for-profit healthcare services company.

Patricia A. Woertz

Prior to joining ourthe company, Ms. Woertz held positions of increasing importance at Chevron Corporation and its predecessor companies. Having started her career as a certified public accountant with Ernst & Ernst, and with a broad range of executive roles at Chevron Corporation and its predecessor companies, Ms. Woertz brings to the board of directors of our company a significant amount of leadership, strategy development, risk management, mergers and acquisitions, international business, marketing, finance and technology experience.

Board Leadership Structure

Our company’s board of directors does not have a current requirement that the roles of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board be either combined or separated, because the board believes it is in the best interests of our company to make this determination based on the position and direction of our company and the constitution of the board and management team. The board regularly evaluates whether the roles of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board should be combined or separated. The board has determined that having our company’s Chief Executive Officer serve as Chairman is in the best interest of our stockholders at this time. The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for theday-to-day management of our company and the development and implementation of our company’s strategy, and has access to the people, information and resources necessary to facilitate board function. Therefore, the board believes that combining the roles of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman contributes to an efficient and effective board.

The non-management directors elect a Lead Director at the board’s annual meeting. Ms. Carter is currently serving as Lead Director. The board believes that naming an independent Lead Director more accurately reflects the accountability and responsibilities that accompany a non-executive position and does not believe that our stockholders would benefit at this time by having the roles of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board filled by different individuals. Our Lead Director provides the board with independent leadership and facilitates the independence of the board from management. The duties and responsibilities of the Lead Director are set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines as follows: (i) organize, convene and preside over executive sessions of the non-management and independent directors and promptly communicate the messages and directives approved by such directors at each such meeting to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; (ii) preside at all meetings of the board at which the Chairman of the boardBoard is not present; (iii) consult with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in establishing meeting schedules and agendas, and in determining the information to be forwarded to the directors both in conjunction with such meetings and otherwise; (iv) facilitate communication among the directors and between the board and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; (v) serve as an advisor to the board committees, chairmen of the board committees and other directors; and (vi) such other duties and responsibilities as assigned fromtime-to-time by the non-management directors consistent with the Lead Director’s role.

In addition to appointing a Lead Director, our non-management directors facilitate the board’s independence by meeting frequently as a group and fostering a climate of transparent communication. The high level of contact between our Lead Director and our Chairman between board meetings and the specificity contained in the board’s delegation of authority parameters also serve to foster effective board leadership.

8


Board Role in Risk Oversight

Management is responsible forday-to-day risk assessment and mitigation activities, and our company’s board of directors is responsible for risk oversight, focusing on our company’s overall risk management strategy, our company’s degree of tolerance for risk and the steps management is taking to manage our company’s risks. While the board as a whole maintains the ultimate oversight responsibility for risk management, the committees of the board can be assigned responsibility for risk management oversight of specific areas. The Audit Committee currently maintains responsibility for overseeing risks related to our


7


company’s financial reporting, auditenterprise risk management process and internal controls over financial reportingregularly discusses our company’s major risk exposures, the steps management has taken to monitor and disclosure controlscontrol such exposures, and procedures.guidelines and policies to govern our company’s risk assessment and risk management processes. The Audit Committee periodically reports to our board of directors regarding significant matters identified with respect to the foregoing. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee has the authority to assign oversight of risk areas to specific committees as the need arises.

Management has established an Integrated Risk Management Committee consisting of company personnel representing multiple functional and regional areas within our company, with broad oversight of the risk management process. Such committee’s responsibilities and objectives include:

ensuring implementation and maintenance of a process to identify, evaluate and prioritize risks to achievement of our company’s objectives;

ensuring congruence of risk decisions with our company’s values, policies, procedures, measurements, and incentives or disincentives;

• ensuring implementation and maintenance of a process to identify, evaluate and prioritize risks to achievement of our company’s objectives;
• ensuring congruence of risk decisions with our company’s values, policies, procedures, measurements, and incentives or disincentives;
• supporting the integration of risk assessment and controls into mainstream business processes and decision-making;
• clearly identifying roles and responsibilities across our company in regard to risk assessment and control functions;
• promoting consistency and standardization in risk identification and controls across our company;
• ensuring sufficient information capabilities and information flow to support risk identification and controls and alignment of technology assets;
• regularly evaluating the overall design and operation of the risk assessment and control process, including development of relevant metrics and indicators; and
• reporting regularly to senior management and our board regarding the above-described processes and the most significant risks to our company’s objectives

supporting the integration of risk assessment and controls into mainstream business processes and decision-making;

clearly identifying roles and responsibilities across our company in regard to risk assessment and control functions;

promoting consistency and standardization in risk identification and controls across our company;

ensuring sufficient information capabilities and information flow to support risk identification and controls and alignment of technology assets;

regularly evaluating the overall design and operation of the risk assessment and control process, including development of relevant metrics and indicators; and

reporting regularly to senior management and our board regarding the above-described processes and the most significant risks to our company’s objectives.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) requires our directors and executive officers to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership on Forms 3, 4 and 5 with the SEC. Based on our review of Forms 3, 4 and 5 we have received from, or have filed on behalf of, our directors and executive officers, and ofon written representations from those persons that they were not required to file a Form 5, we believe that, during the fiscal yearsix-month transition period ended June 30, 2010,December 31, 2012, our directors and executive officers complied with all Section 16(a) filing requirements.


8


Executive Stock Ownership Policy

The board of directors believes that it is important for each member of our senior management to acquire and maintain a significant ownership position in shares of our common stock to further align the interests of senior management with the stockholders’ interests. Accordingly, we have adopted a policy regarding ownership of shares of our common stock by senior management. The policy calls for members of senior management to

9


own shares of common stock with a fair market value within a range of one to five times that individual’s base salary, depending on each individual’s level of responsibility with our company. As of the date of this proxy statement, each of the named executive officers (as defined herein) has exceeded the applicable guideline. The stock ownership guidelines applicable to the named executive officers (as defined herein) are set forth below.

Executive

  Ownership
Guideline as  a
Multiple of Salary
 
Ownership
Guideline as a
Executive
Multiple of Salary

P. A. Woertz

   5x  
S.

J. R. MillsLuciano

   3x  
D. J. Smith

R. G. Young

   3x  

D. J. D. RiceSmith(1)

   3x  

M. D’AmbroseJ. Jansen

   3x1.5x  

(1)Mr. Smith retired as an executive officer and employee of our company effective December 31, 2012.

Executive Officer Stock Ownership

The following table shows the number of shares of our common stock beneficially owned as of September 9, 2010,March 11, 2013, directly or indirectly, by each of the individuals named in the Summary Compensation Table on page 31.

             
     Options
    
  Common Stock
  Exercisable
  Percent
 
Name
 Owned(1)  Within 60 Days  of Class 
 
P. A. Woertz  1,236,161   570,668   *
S. R. Mills  398,129   144,484   *
D. J. Smith  516,770   238,390   *
J. D. Rice  411,086   163,883   *
M. D’Ambrose  142,081   58,139   *
herein.

Name

  Common
Stock
Beneficially
Owned(1)
   Options
Exercisable
Within 60
Days
   Percent
of
Class
 

P. A. Woertz

   2,243,796     1,327,875     *  

J. R. Luciano

   357,917     38,802     *  

R. G. Young

   142,329     16,075     *  

D. J. Smith(2)

   670,852     318,506     *  

M. J. Jansen.

   198,480     70,417     *  

*Less than 1% of outstanding shares
(1)Includes shares allocated to the accounts of the named individuals under our 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan and, pursuant to SEC rules, stock options exercisable within 60 days.
(2)Mr. Smith’s information is reported as of December 31, 2012.

Common stock beneficially owned as of September 9, 2010March 11, 2013 by all directors, director nominees and executive officers as a group, numbering 33 persons including those listed above, except for Mr. Smith, is 16,022,45116,983,939 shares representing 2.51%2.58% of the outstanding shares, of which 1,728,633363,388 shares represent stock units allocated under our Stock Unit Plan for Nonemployee Directors, 2,230,612 shares are unissued but are subject to stock options exercisable within 60 days.

days and no shares are subject to pledge.

Independence of Directors

NYSE Independence

The listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, require companies listed on the NYSE to have a majority of “independent” directors. Subject to certain exceptions and transition provisions, the NYSE standards generally provide that a director will qualify as “independent” if the board affirmatively determines that he or she has no material relationship with our company other than as a director, and will not be considered independent if:

(1) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family is, or in the past three years has been, one of our executive officers or, in the case of the director, one of our employees;


9


(2) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family has received during any12-month period within the last three years more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from us other than for service as a director, provided that compensation received by an immediate family member for service as a non-executive officer employee is not considered in determining independence;

10


(3) the director or an immediate family member is a current partner of one of our independent auditors, the director is employed by one of our independent auditors, a member of the director’s immediate family is employed by one of our independent auditors and personally works on our audits, or the director or a member of the director’s immediate family was within the last three years an employee of one of our independent auditors and personally worked on one of our audits;

(4) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family is, or in the past three years has been, employed as an executive officer of a company where one of our executive officers at the same time serves or served on the compensation committee; or

(5) the director is a current employee of, or a member of the director’s immediate family is an executive officer of, a company that makes payments to, or receives payments from, us in an amount which, in any of the last three fiscal years, exceeds the greater of $1 million or 2% of such other company’s consolidated gross revenues.

Bylaw Independence

Section 2.8 of our bylaws also provides that a majority of the board of directors be comprised of independent directors. Under our bylaws, an “independent director” means a director who

who:

(1) is not a current employee or a former member of our senior management or the senior management of one of our affiliates,

affiliates;

(2) is not employed by one of our professional services providers,

providers;

(3) does not have any business relationship with us, either personally or through a company of which the director is an officer or a controlling shareholder, that is material to us or to the director,

director;

(4) does not have a close family relationship, by blood, marriage, or otherwise, with any member of our senior management or the senior management of one of our affiliates,

affiliates;

(5) is not an officer of a company of which our Chairman or Chief Executive Officer is also a board member,

member;

(6) is not personally receiving compensation from us in any capacity other than as a director,director; and

(7) does not personally receive or is not an employee of a foundation, university, or other institution that receives grants or endowments from us, that are material to us, the recipient, or the foundation/university/institution.

The board of directors has reviewed business and charitable relationships between us and each non-employee director and director nominee to determine compliance with the NYSE and bylaw standards described above and to evaluate whether there are any other facts or circumstances that might impair a director’s or nominee’s independence. Based on that review, the board has determined that nineeleven of its tentwelve current members, Dr. Buckley, Messrs. Boeckmann, Crews, Dufour, Felsinger, Maciel, Moore, O’Neill, Shih and Westbrook, Dr. Haynes and Ms. Carter, are independent. Ms. Woertz is not independent under the NYSE or bylaw standards because of her employment with us.

In determining that Dr. BuckleyMr. Boeckmann is independent, the board considered that, in the ordinary course of business, 3M Company,Sempra Energy, of which Dr. BuckleyMr. Boeckmann is Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, purchased approximately $322,000 of certain commodity products from our company, anda director, sold approximately $640,000 of suppliesutility services to our company, on an arms-length basis during the fiscal yearsix-month period ended June 30, 2010.December 31, 2012. The board determined that this arrangement didMr. Boeckmann does not exceedhave a direct or indirect material interest in such transactions and that such transactions do not otherwise impair Mr. Boeckmann’s independence.

In determining that Dr. Buckley is independent, the NYSE’s thresholdboard considered that, during the six-month period ended December 31, 2012, Stanley Black & Decker, of 2%which Dr. Buckley is a director, sold certain repair and maintenance supplies to our company, that Hitachi Ltd., of 3M Company’s consolidated

which Dr. Buckley is a director, sold certain parts and


10

11


gross revenues,equipment to our company, and that Pepsico, of which Dr. Buckley is a director, purchased certain commodity products from, and sold certain soft drink products to, our company. All such transactions were in the ordinary course of business and on an arms-length basis. The board determined that Dr. Buckley does not have a direct or indirect material interest in such transactions and that such transactions do not otherwise impair Dr. Buckley’s independence.

In determining that Ms. Carter is independent, the board considered that, during all or a portion of the fiscal yearsix-month period ended June 30, 2010,December 31, 2012, Ms. Carter’s brother was employed by our company in a non-executive officer capacity as a compliance auditor at total annual compensation less than $120,000. The board determined that Ms. Carter does not have a direct or indirect material interest in such employment relationship and that such employment relationship does not otherwise impair Ms. Carter’s independence. Also in determining that Ms. Carter is independent, the board considered that, during the fiscal yearsix-month period ended June 30, 2010,December 31, 2012, the company purchased utility services from Westar Energy Inc. approximately $2.8 million of utility services in the ordinary course of business and on an arms-length basis. Ms. Carter is a director of Westar Energy Inc. The board determined that this arrangement did not exceed the NYSE’s threshold of 2% of Westar Energy Inc.’s consolidated gross revenues, that Ms. Carter does not have a direct or indirect material interest in such utility transactions, and that such utility transactions do not otherwise impair Ms. Carter’s independence.

In determining that Mr. Crews is independent, the board considered that, in the ordinary course of business, Rock-Tenn Company, of which Mr. Crews is a director, purchased certain commodity products from our company and sold certain supplies to our company and that Hormel Foods Corporation, of which Mr. Crews is a director, purchased certain commodity products from our company, all on an arms-length basis during the six-month period ended December 31, 2012. The board determined that Mr. Crews does not have a direct or indirect material interest in such transactions and that such transactions do not otherwise impair Mr. Crews’ independence.

In determining that Mr. Dufour is independent, the board considered that, in the ordinary course of business, Air Liquide Group, of which Mr. Dufour is Senior Executive Vice President and a director, sold approximately $1.2 million of certain supplies and commodity products to our company on an arms-length basis during the fiscal yearsix-month period ended June 30, 2010.December 31, 2012. The board determined that this arrangement did not exceed the NYSE’s threshold of 2% of Air Liquide Group’s consolidated gross revenues, that Mr. Dufour does not have a direct or indirect material interest in such transactions, and that such transactions do not otherwise impair Mr. Dufour’s independence.

In determining that Mr. Felsinger is independent, the board considered that, in the ordinary course of business, Sempra Energy, of which Mr. Felsinger iswas Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, purchased approximately $363,000for a portion of ethanol from our company, andthe six-month period ended December 31, 2012, sold approximately $7.3 million of ethanolutility service to our company, on an arms-length basis during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.such period. The board determined that this arrangement did not exceed the NYSE’s threshold of 2% of Sempra Energy’s consolidated gross revenues, that Mr. Felsinger does not have a direct or indirect material interest in such transactions, and that such transactions do not otherwise impair Mr. Felsinger’s independence.

In determining that Mr. Moore is independent, the board considered that, in the ordinary course of business, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation,Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., of which Mr. Moore is Chief Executive Officer,a director, purchased approximately $11.4 million worth of certain commodity products from our company, and sold approximately $3.8 million worth of certain products to our company, on an arms-length basis during the fiscal yearsix-month period ended June 30, 2010.December 31, 2012. The board determined that this arrangement did not exceed the NYSE’s threshold of 2% of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation’s consolidated gross revenues, that Mr. Moore does not have a direct or indirect material interest in such transactions, and that such transactions do not otherwise impair Mr. Moore’s independence.

In determining that Mr. Westbrook is independent, the board considered that, in the ordinary course of business, Stifel Financial Corp., of which Mr. Westbrook is a director, provided certain brokerage services to our company and that BJC Healthcare, of which Mr. Westbrook is a director, provided certain medical services to our company, all on an arms-length basis during the six-month period ended December 31, 2012. The board determined that Mr. Westbrook does not have a direct or indirect material interest in such transactions and that such transactions do not otherwise impair Mr. Westbrook’s independence.

12


Corporate Governance Guidelines

The board has adopted corporate governance guidelines that govern the structure and functioning of the board and set-out the board’s policies on governance issues. The guidelines, along with the written charters of each of the committees of the board and our bylaws, are posted on our internet site,www.adm.com,and are available free of charge on written request to Secretary, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, 4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, Illinois62526-5666.

Executive Sessions

In accordance with our corporate governance guidelines, the non-management directors meet in executive session at least quarterly. If the non-management directors include any directors who are not independent pursuant to the board’s determination of independence, at least one executive session includes only independent directors. The lead director,Lead Director, or in his or her absence, the chairpersonchairman of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee, presides at such meetings. The non-management directors met in executive session four timestwice during fiscal 2010.


11

Fiscal Year 2012.5.


Board Meetings and Attendance at Annual Meetings of Stockholders

During the last fiscal year,six-month period ended December 31, 2012, our board of directors held ninefive meetings. All incumbent directors, other than Dr. Buckley and Mr. O’Neill, attended 75% or more of the combined total meetings of the board and the committees on which they served during such period. Dr. Buckley and Mr. O’Neill were unable to attend 75% of such meetings due to travel and communications difficulties caused by Hurricane Sandy and due to the lastlow number of meetings held during the six-month period ended December 31, 2012 as compared to the number of meetings held during a full fiscal year. With respect to the 2012 calendar year, each of Dr. Buckley and Mr. O’Neill attended 75% or more of the combined total meetings of the board and the committees on which they served. We expect all director nominees to attend the annual stockholders’ meeting. All director nominees standing for election at our last annual stockholders’ meeting held on November 5, 20091, 2012, other than Dr. Buckley and Mr. O’Neill, attended that meeting.

Information Concerning Committees and Meetings

The board’s standing committees are the Audit, Compensation/Succession, Nominating/Corporate Governance, and Executive Committees. Each committee operates pursuant to a written charter adopted by the board, available on our internet site,www.adm.com.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee consists of Mr. O’Neill,Crews, Chairman, Dr. Buckley, Ms. Carter, Mr. Dufour, Mr. O’Neill, Mr. Maciel and Dr. Haynes.Mr. Moore. The Audit Committee met ninefive times during the most recent fiscal year.six-month period ended December 31, 2012. All of the members of the Audit Committee were determined by the board to be independent directors, as that term is defined in our bylaws, in the NYSE listing standards and in Section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act. No director may serve as a member of the Audit Committee if such director serves on the audit committees of more than two other public companies unless the board determines that such service would not impair such director’s ability to serve effectively on the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee reviews:

(1) the overall plan of the annual independent audit;

(2) financial statements;

(3) the scope of audit procedures;

(4) the performance of our independent auditors and internal auditors;

(5) the auditors’ evaluation of internal controls;

(6) matters of legal and regulatory compliance;

13


(7) the performance of our company’s compliance function; and

(7)

(8) certain relationships and related transactions.

Compensation/Succession Committee

The Compensation/Succession Committee consists of Mr. Westbrook, Chairman, Mr. Boeckmann, Dr. Buckley, Ms. Carter, and Messrs. Felsinger, Maciel and Moore.Mr. Felsinger. The Compensation/Succession Committee met eightfour times during the most recent fiscal year.six-month period ended December 31, 2012. All of the members of the Compensation/Succession Committee were determined by the board to be independent directors, as that term is defined in our bylaws and in the NYSE listing standards. The Compensation/Succession Committee:

(1) establishes and administers a compensation policy for senior management;

(2) reviews and approves the compensation policy for all of our employees and our subsidiaries other than senior management;

(3) approves all compensation elements with respect to our executive officers and all employees with a base salary of $500,000 or more;

(4) reviews and monitors our financial performance as it affects our compensation policies or the administration of those policies;

(5) establishes and reviews a compensation policy for non-employee directors;

(6) reviews and monitors our succession plans;

(7) approves awards to employees pursuant to our incentive compensation plans; and


12


(8) approves modifications in the employee benefit plans with respect to the benefits salaried employees receive under such plans.

All of the Compensation/Succession Committee’s actions are reported to the board of directors and, where appropriate, submitted to the board of directors for ratification. Members of management attend meetings of the committee and make recommendations to the committee regarding compensation for officers other than the Chief Executive Officer. In determining the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation, the committee considers the evaluation prepared by the non-management directors.

In accordance with the General Corporation Law of Delaware, the committee may delegate to one or more officers the authority to grant stock options to other officers and employees who are not directors or executive officers, provided that the resolution authorizing this delegation specify the total number of options that the officer or officers can award. The charter for the Compensation/Succession Committee also provides that the committee may form subcommittees and delegate tasks to them.

For additional information on the responsibilities and activities of the Compensation/Succession Committee, including the committee’s processes for determining executive compensation, see the section of this proxy statement entitled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” commencing on page 14.

.

Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee

The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee consists of Ms. Carter, Chairperson,Mr. Maciel, Chairman, and Messrs.Mr. Boeckmann, Mr. Felsinger MacielMr. Shih, and Mr. Westbrook. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee met four timestwice during the most recent fiscal year.six-month period ended December 31, 2012. All of the members of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee were determined by the board to be independent directors, as that term is defined in our bylaws and in the NYSE listing standards. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee:

(1) identifies individuals qualified to become members of the board, including evaluating individuals appropriately suggested by stockholders in accordance with our bylaws;

14


(2) recommends individuals to the board for nomination as members of the board and board committees;

(3) develops and recommends to the board a set of corporate governance principles applicable to the company; and

(4) leads the evaluation of the directors, the board and board committees.

The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee will consider nominees recommended by a stockholder provided the stockholder submits the nominee’s name in a written notice delivered to our Secretary at our principal executive offices not less than 60 nor more than 90 days prior to the anniversary date of the immediately preceding annual stockholders’ meeting. However, if the annual meeting is called for a date that is not within 30 days before or after such anniversary date, the notice must be received at our principal executive offices not later than the close of business on the tenth day following the day on which such notice of the date of the annual meeting was mailed or public disclosure of the date of the annual meeting was made (whichever first occurs). Different notice delivery requirements may apply if the number of directors to be elected at an annual meeting is being increased, and we do not make a public announcement naming all of the nominees or specifying the size of the increased board at least 100 days prior to the first anniversary of the preceding year’s annual meeting. Any notice of a stockholder nomination must set forth the information required by Section 1.4(c) of our bylaws, and must be accompanied by a written consent from the proposed nominee to being named as a nominee and to serve as a director if elected, and a written statement from the proposed nominee as to whether he or she intends, if elected, to tender the contingent, irrevocable resignation that would become effective should the individual fail to receive the required vote for re-election at the next meeting of stockholders. All candidates, regardless of the source of their recommendation, are evaluated using the same criteria.


13


Executive Committee

The Executive Committee consists of Ms. Woertz, Chairperson, Mr. Moore,Chairman, Ms. Carter, Lead Director, and Dr. Buckley.Mr. Moore. The Executive Committee met oncetwice during the most recent fiscal year.six-month period ended December 31, 2012. The Executive Committee acts on behalf of the board to determine matters which, in the judgment of the Chairman of the Board, do not warrant convening a special board meeting but should not be postponed until the next scheduled board meeting. The Executive Committee exercises all the power and authority of the board in the management and direction of our business and affairs except for matters which are expressly delegated to another board committee and matters that cannot be delegated by the board under applicable law, our certificate of incorporation, or our bylaws.

Communications with Directors

We have approved procedures for stockholders and other interested parties to send communications to individual directors or the non-employee directors as a group. You should send any such communications in writing addressed to the applicable director or directors in care of the Secretary, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, 4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, Illinois62526-5666. All correspondence will be forwarded to the intended recipient(s).

Code of Conduct

The board has adopted a Business Code of Conduct and Ethics that sets forth standards regarding matters such as honest and ethical conduct, compliance with law, and full, fair, accurate, and timely disclosure in reports and documents that we file with the SEC and in other public communications. The Business Code of Conduct and Ethics applies to all of our employees, officers, and directors, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and principal accounting officer. The Business Code of Conduct and Ethics is available at our internet site,www.adm.com,and is available free of charge on written request to Secretary, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, 4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, Illinois62526-5666. Any amendments to certain provisions of the Business Code of Conduct and Ethics or waivers of such provisions granted to certain executive officers will be promptly disclosed on our internet site.

15


Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction and Executive Summary

The purpose of the

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis is to explainexplains the process the Compensation and Compensation/Succession Committee (“Committee”) uses to determine compensation and benefits for our named executive officers.

The named executive officers are:
(“NEOs”) and provides a detailed description of those programs.

In 2012, we made the decision to transition to a calendar fiscal year. As part of this transition, we implemented a six-month financial and compensation period from July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, hereinafter referred to as “FY2012.5”. As such, FY2012.5 reflects a partial year when considering our company performance and NEO pay.

This discussion focuses on the compensation provided to our NEOs during FY2012.5, who were:

Name

  

Title

•   P. A.

P.A. Woertz

  Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President (“CEO”)
•   S. R. Mills

J.R. Luciano

  Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOperating Officer (“COO”)
•   D. J.

R.G. Young

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”)

D.J. Smith

  Executive Vice President Secretary and General Counsel(retired on December 31, 2012)
•   J. D. RiceExecutive Vice President (Commercial and Production)
•   M. D’Ambrose

M.J. Jansen

  Senior Vice President Human Resourcesand President — Global Oilseeds

Executive SummaryHow Pay is Tied to Company Performance

To set

Our business objectives are the foundation for fiscal year 2010 (“FY10”),our compensation programs. We believe, and our compensation programs support, that as an employee’s level in the Committee utilized an enhanced framework which incorporated notorganization or level of responsibility increases, so should the proportion of performance-based compensation. As such, our executive compensation programs closely tie pay to performance and will only ADM’sdeliver competitive levels of compensation if we achieve our goals and enhance shareholder value.

FY2012.5 Financial and Operating Performance

In FY2012.5, the Company delivered solid results in a challenging business plan but also an industry perspective, historical earnings, earnings variability, shareholders’ expectations, analysts’ estimates,environment. Our team managed well despite challenges from the U.S. drought and ADM’s cost of capital. Because offrom persistent, negative margins in the integrated natureethanol industry. Our results in Oilseeds and Agricultural Services demonstrate the ability of our business, goalspeople to manage our global asset network, to prepare for and evaluation criteria underlyingmanage in a range of market conditions. We continue to focus on better aligning our short-termportfolio of businesses and long-term incentive plans reflect company-wide achievements that are consistent with the interestsenhancing our efficiencies. Our specific performance highlights included:

Adjusted EBITDA of our shareholders.$1.675 billion;

Fiscal year 2010 proved to be a successful year financially. We exceeded targeted financial objectives for earnings per share (“EPS”) and Return

Strong focus on Net Assets (“RONA”), both as defined on page 21, including being


14


adjusted for LIFO. (LIFO means“last-in, first-out” and refers to the practice of valuing inventory so the most recent costs to the Company are reflected in the cost of products sold. LIFO is excluded in order to align the performance metric with the Company’s internal management measures.) For our Cost Management objectives, we exceeded one objective but fell short of the threshold for the other objective,returns, which resulted in no payout with respect$150M run rate savings from global workforce restructuring and unlocking $1 billion in working cash;

Increased profits in Oilseeds Processing and Agricultural Services; and

Reduction in net debt balances to their lowest levels since June 2010.

16


How Business Performance Determines Executive Compensation

The following charts illustrate the Cost Management objectives. Lastly, we also met or exceeded nonfinancial objectives, which included objectives related to safety and to internaldirectional relationship between Company performance, management responsibilities. These objectives are further defined on page 21.

In addition, as part of ADM’s compensation program design, the Committee retains discretion to consider performance outside of pre-established objectives to ensure that the program reflects company performance and management’s impact in achieving that performance. Overall, the Committee viewed FY10 as a year of sustained and successful performance. In making compensation decisions based on FY10 performance,three key metrics, and the Committee took into account a numbercompensation of factors, including the following:
our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President in FY2011, FY2012 and FY2012.5. These key metrics, Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted ROIC and total shareholder return (“TSR”), were chosen because they correlate with and are reflective of long-term stockholder value.

LOGO

• 39% annual earnings growth
 • 12% return on net assetsLOGO
• Mixed results on cost reduction objectives
• Mixed results on total shareholder return (“TSR”) versus external benchmarks, e.g.,3-year total shareholder return above S&P 500, though still negative
• Improved safety results
• Solid execution of the annual business plan and progress on long-term strategic initiatives
• Continued focus on leadership development and performance management processes
• Progress towards short-term and long-term succession planning
• The desire to increase the focus on variable, performance-based compensation
Based on this comprehensive performance assessment, and combined with a review of the economic environment and competitive trends, the Committee made the following decisions for our named executive officers:

LOGO

• Salaries remained unchanged for both FY10 and fiscal year 2011 (“FY11”)
 LOGO

1 — Pay is defined as base salary paid in the year and annual and long-term incentives earned in the year (but granted the following year). All figures for FY2012.5 represent a six-month period.

FY2012.5 NEO Earned Incentive Compensation

In FY2012.5, we achieved financial performance of $1.675 billion of Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted ROIC that was 90 basis points above our weighted average cost of capital. This performance, under our new, simpler incentive award formula led to a cash bonus award of 75.0% of target for the NEOs. The Compensation/Succession Committee subsequently can make adjustments to this award within a range of -20% to +20% based on its assessment of individual and group performance (the “individual multiplier”). For FY2012.5 performance, the Compensation/Succession Committee elected to award the CEO, COO and CFO the same individual multiplier in recognition of their collective efforts as an executive management team and their contribution to our success. The Compensation/Succession Committee incorporated its and the full Board’s assessment of our CEO’s performance and our full company performance when approving Ms. Woertz’s individual multiplier. Mr. Jansen’s individual multiplier reflects his contributions to the performance of his business unit. Mr. Smith received an individual multiplier of 1.0 due to his retirement in FY2012.5.

17


The individual multipliers for our NEOs for FY2012.5 are as follows:

P.A. Woertz — 1.15

J.R. Luciano — 1.15

R.G. Young — 1.15

D.J. Smith — 1.0

M.J. Jansen — 1.2

The Compensation/Succession Committee granted long-term incentive (“LTI”) awards for FY2012.5 at a base level, reflecting its assessment of our relative performance for the three-year period ended December 31, 2012. The Committee considers multiple performance factors, including an assessment of our three-year TSR compared to the S&P 100 Industrials, as well as other comparators. These awards were granted in early 2013 and will appear in our next year’s Summary Compensation Table. Because FY2012.5 was a partial year, these LTI awards were pro-rated to half of the full-year award value. The LTI awards granted in August 2012, which were based on three full fiscal years of performance ended June 30, 2012, are shown in this year’s Summary Compensation Table.

Our change in fiscal year creates some fluctuations in comparing performance and pay levels across years. In our discussions of pay levels for FY2012.5, we have, as in prior fiscal years, identified the actual pay for the period as pay earned in the period, which was pro-rated for the six-month performance period.

In future years’ disclosures, as full fiscal year data are also reported and compared to this partial year, we will explain the volatility that is related to this timing shift, separate from the discussion of volatility that is inherent in our pay program due to its strong alignment with our financial performance. In the table below, we illustrate the fluctuations in reported compensation levels that we expect related to our change in fiscal year end. Because future pay decisions have not yet been made, the illustration uses award levels shown as a percent of annualized target values for a hypothetical individual and not a specific NEO.

LOGO

CEO Realizable Pay

To further illustrate the alignment of our compensation program with business performance, with an emphasis on stockholder value creation, we considered the relationship between pay opportunity and realizable

18


pay. While most of the required compensation disclosures represent the awards thatmay be earned, realizable pay considers actual earnings based on performance. For this purpose, realizable pay means the sum of salary, actual cash bonus paid for each fiscal year, the current “in the money” value of stock options granted in the year and the current market value of restricted stock granted in the year. For each year below, the equity awards granted in each fiscal year are presented at their current realizable value, which is based on the December 31, 2012 closing price.

The following graph shows the realizable pay of Ms. Woertz, our CEO, for each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and for the six-month period ended December 31, 2012, and the correlation with the indexed TSR of our common stock on these dates. As the chart indicates:

Ms. Woertz’s awarded total direct compensation has declined during the past three years, based on our company performance, including our TSR with respect to relevant comparisons.

 FY10 annual cash incentives to named executive officers were paid at 152% of target levels
 

Ms. Woertz’srealizable pay is only a portion of the granted award value. Because the largest portion of her compensation opportunity is provided in the form of equity, of which 50% has been in the form of stock options that have zero value if share price does not increase, Ms. Woertz’s compensation has been directly aligned with the interests of our stockholders and stockholder value.

CEO Realizable Pay Is Aligned With Stock Price

LOGO

Results of 2012 Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation

At the 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, we held our second advisory vote on executive compensation. Approximately 90% of the votes cast were in favor of this advisory proposal. The Compensation/Succession Committee considered this favorable outcome, and the favorable outcome of the prior, inaugural vote, and

19


believed it conveyed our stockholders’ support of the Compensation/Succession Committee’s decisions and the existing executive compensation programs. As a result, the changes the Compensation/Succession Committee made to the structure of our compensation programs were focused on further enhancing transparency and stockholder value. At the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, we will again hold an annual advisory vote to approve executive compensation. The Compensation/ Succession Committee will continue to consider the results from this year’s and future advisory votes on executive compensation.

Program Design

The objectives of our executive compensation program are to:

Attract and retain a strong executive team and motivate them to develop leadership and successors;

Align the interests of the NEOs with those of our stockholders;

Encourage a culture of pay-for-performance by requiring sufficient financial performance before awards may be earned and directly tying awards to quantifiable performance;

Encourage and reward current business results through cash salaries and performance-based annual cash incentives;

Reward sustained performance by granting equity and maintaining ownership guidelines; and

In total, provide competitive total compensation opportunities.

Our executive compensation program is built on a structure that balances short and long term performance:

Salaries generally target the median of companies of similar scope, complexity and business environment;

Our annual cash incentive program is based on two key measures of financial performance; and

The size of our long-term incentive program awards is based on our ability to drive stockholder value over a three-year period. The awards have generally been granted using a mix of stock options and restricted stock to continue the alignment of the interests of our NEOs and stockholders. Beginning with awards granted in 2013, we have added performance stock units to this mix.

We pay an annual cash incentive only if our company’s overall performance warrants. Our annual cash incentive program emphasizes company-wide performance objectives to encourage the executives to focus on overall company success and leadership to generate the most value across the entire company. Our assessment of company performance is directly tied to stockholder expectations by ensuring the delivery of threshold levels of Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted ROIC before awards may be earned (see Annex A — “Definition and Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures”). Individual performance and the Compensation/Succession Committee’s informed judgment are incorporated to ensure actual awards appropriately reflect our operating environment and individual executive contributions.

Our LTI program is designed to reward sustained performance based on a review of three years of performance. The Compensation/Succession Committee conducts a thorough assessment of multi-year performance incorporating perspective on company and market factors, including relative and absolute stockholder return and strategic, operating, and financial milestones, when determining the portion of an executive’s target award that should be granted, but focuses largely on our TSR performance compared to the S&P 100 Industrials. The Compensation/Succession Committee, based on its assessment of the prior three years of performance, awarded LTI awards in August 2012 at the base award level upon completion of fiscal year 2012. These awards were granted in FY2012.5 and, as required by the SEC, appear in the FY2012.5 Summary Compensation Table. Pro-rated LTI awards were also granted for FY2012.5 to reflect one-half year of service and relative TSR performance from January 1, 2010 — December 31, 2012. The Committee elected to award these grants at the base level to maintain alignment with stockholders and help to retain our executive talent.

20


However, these awards are below the targeted competitive compensation due to our below-median TSR. These adjusted FY2012.5 awards will appear in next year’s proxy statement as grants made in 2013 even though they are reflective of prior performance.

Executive Compensation Best Practices

We annually review all elements of NEO pay and, where appropriate for our business objectives and our stockholders, may make changes to incorporate and maintain current best practices.

On-going Best Practices:

A clawback policy covering all cash and equity incentives of NEOs and certain other senior executives;

A clawback provision in agreements for long-term incentives that provides for the forfeiture or recovery of prior awards for a broad range of reasons for all employees;

A Compensation/Succession Committee comprised solely of independent directors;

A regular review of stockholder advisory groups’ guidelines and policies, including regular dialogue with these groups, to ensure executive pay programs appropriately consider stockholder interests;

A regular, independent review of our compensation programs by an outside consultant to assess risk;

A consistent, company-wide rewards strategy that utilizes the same company-wide performance metrics for all employees;

Stock ownership guidelines for NEOs and additional senior leaders;

An active, detailed role for the Compensation/Succession Committee in determining equity award grant structure and value;

An independent compensation consultant retained by, and which reports to, the Compensation/Succession Committee and has no other business with the company;

Regular briefings from the compensation consultant regarding key trends;

Annual reviews of our comparator groups;

An annual review of CEO performance;

An annual review of NEO performance;

No individual employment agreements for NEOs, with the exception of our CEO;

Non-compete provisions for retirees to be eligible to receive future equity award vesting;

No change-in-control tax gross-ups, with the exception of that provided in the original employment agreement with our CEO;

No dividends paid on unvested performance-based awards;

Limited perquisites—no clubs, financial planning or tax reimbursement for perquisites, except for relocation expenses as applies to all employees. In FY2012, we eliminated most of our perquisites, with the exception of an executive physical, automobile benefit and limited personal use of company aircraft as approved by our CEO, although our CEO will continue to be required to utilize the company aircraft for travel, in addition to a home security system for personal security;

 Long-term incentive (“LTI”) awards in FY11 (granted in August 2010 based upon fiscal year

2008-2010 performance) were grantedEliminated for our CEO, COO and CFO, at the target level. These grant values were the same as grant values for awards made early in FY10 (based on fiscal yeartheir request, their automobile benefit2007-20091 performance), with the exception of the CFO whose target value was increased.;

Specifically for the CEO, her FY10 annual cash incentive is 45% above fiscal year 2009 (“FY09”). In addition, the grant date fair value of her LTI awards made in FY11 is the same as for her LTI awards made in FY10, both of which are less than the comparable value of her LTI awards made in FY09.
During FY10, the Committee made minimal changes to the compensation programs. Minor adjustments were made to the annual bonus plan to both simplify the plan

A policy that prohibits executives and to address the economic environment. No changes were made to the overall designdirectors from hedging of the long-term incentive plan.Company’s securities; and

1 — During FY2012.5, two NEOs received a company automobile. Mr. Jansen, like all Business Unit heads, was eligible during FY2012.5 for a company-provided automobile. Until his retirement on December 31, 2012, Mr. Smith also received a company automobile.

21


A policy that requires executives and directors to review any pledging of Company securities with the Company’s General Counsel prior to engaging in such activity; and that prohibits pledging by executives and directors who have not met stock ownership guidelines.

Oversight of Executive Compensation

What Is is the Role of the Compensation/Succession Committee?

The Role Of The Committee?

TheCompensation/Succession Committee is composed solely of all independent directors and is responsible to the board of directors and our shareholdersstockholders for establishing our compensation philosophy and establishing and administering our compensation policies and programs. As part ofprograms consistent with this responsibility, the Committee fulfills itsphilosophy. The Compensation/Succession Committee’s responsibilities asare set forth in the Committee’s charter. TheCompensation/Succession Committee’s charter, which is available on the investor relations section of


15


our website. Additional information regarding the Compensation/Succession Committee’s authority to determine compensation can be found onherein under the caption “Compensation/Succession Committee.”

What Is Theis the Role Of Theof the Board?

The board approves the company’s business plan, which is one of the factors used to set financial business objectives for the annual cash incentive plan. The non-management directors establish and approve all performance criteria for evaluating the CEO and annually evaluate the performance of the CEO based on these criteria. The non-management directors also ratify the CEO’s compensation. When asked by the Compensation/Succession Committee, the board can also provide input and ratification on any additional compensation-related issues. For FY10,The board also conducts an annual review of the board provided input and ratifiedcompany’s performance.

What is the following additional compensation items:

• compensation of the named executive officers
• metrics related to the compensation plan
What Is The Role Of Theof the Compensation/Succession Committee Consultant?
From April 2008 through January 2010, the Committee engaged Towers Perrin (which changed its name to Towers Watson following the completion of its merger with Watson Wyatt on January 1, 2010) as its independent compensation consultant. During the time period from July 1, 2009 through January 31, 2010, Towers Perrin and Towers Watson provided other services to the Company in addition to compensation consulting services, but the fees for those other services were less than $120,000. Although prior to the merger Watson Wyatt had also provided pension consulting and related services to the Company, the Committee concluded that the provision of such services while Watson Wyatt was still independent of Towers Perrin presented no conflict of interest. Effective February 1, 2010, the

The Compensation/Succession Committee retained Pay Governance LLC as its independent executive compensation consultant. Pay Governance provides no other services to the Company. Towers Watson may continue to provide the Company with market data and related analytic services, and the Company may use Towers Watson for other projects in the future.

company. The independent compensation consultant reports directly to the Compensation/Succession Committee, and provides the Compensation/Succession Committee with objective and expert analyses and independent advice on executive and director compensation, and other matters in support of the Compensation/Succession Committee’s responsibilities under its charter. Each Compensation/Succession Committee meeting includes an executive session where the Compensation/Succession Committee meets exclusively with the independent consultant; Companycompany management is not included in these meetings. Outside of these meetings, the independent consultant interacts with our management team solely on behalf of the Compensation/Succession Committee to assist the Compensation/Succession Committee in fulfilling its duties and responsibilities. The Compensation/Succession Committee will only retain consultants that it believes that the consultants it retains are able towill provide it with independent advice. The Compensation/Succession Committee will periodically review the performance andhas assessed the independence of Pay Governance pursuant to the independent compensation consultant.
SEC’s and NYSE’s rules and concluded that the work Pay Governance has performed does not raise any conflict of interest.

What Are Theare the Roles Ofof Executives?

To assist the Compensation/Succession Committee in determining compensation for the other named executive officers,NEOs, our CEO participates in these discussions.discussions with the Compensation/Succession Committee regarding the officers’ performance and compensation. She provides the Compensation/Succession Committee with her assessment of the named executive officers’NEOs’ performance, both as individuals and with respect to the functions or business units they oversee. She also recommends to the Compensation/Succession Committee, but does not determine or vote on, the specific amount of compensation that should be paid to the named executive officers.

other NEOs.

Our Senior Vice President of Human Resources administers all employee compensation and benefits programs, with oversight and supervision by the Compensation/Succession Committee. He prepares the majority of the materials for the Compensation/Succession Committee meetings and provides analyses that assist the

22


Compensation/Succession Committee with theirits decisions, such as summaries of competitive market practices, summaries of our succession planning actions, and reports regarding our company’s performance to date.performance. In addition, throughout the year, he facilitates meetings with management to help the Compensation/Succession Committee gain a better understanding of company performance. He ensures that the Compensation/Succession Committee is provided a rigorous assessment of year-to-date performanceyear-to-date at each Compensation/Succession Committee meeting.


16


Throughout At the year,direction of the General Counsel attendedChairman, our Senior Vice President of Human Resources involves other members of management in portions of the Compensation/Succession Committee meetings and assisted on legal issuesto participate in discussions related to company and individual performance and our compensation and benefit programs. Our executives leave meetings during discussions of individual compensation actions affecting them personally and during all executive sessions, unless requested to attend by the Compensation/Succession Committee.

Compensation Philosophy

What IsHow Do the Committee’s Decisions Incorporate Our Executive Compensation Philosophy?Objectives?
We believe compensation programs are critical tools in creating shareholder value. In support of this philosophy, our current executive compensation programs are designed to support our business objectives by:

1.Alignment of Executive and Stockholder Interests. We believe that a substantial portion of total compensation should be delivered in the form of equity in order to align the interests of our NEOs with the interests of our stockholders. In FY2012.5, on average for our NEOs participating in our standard executive compensation programs for the full year, 65% of actual total direct compensation was in the form of equity. These awards were determined primarily based on our three-year TSR, compared to the S&P 100 Industrials. Restricted stock awards typically vest three years from the date of grant and stock options typically vest over five years. We also include a clawback provision in agreements for long-term incentive awards that not only enables us to recover awards if the recipient engages in prohibited conduct, but also makes awards subject to any clawback policy involving the restatement of our earnings.

2.Enable Us to Attract and Retain Top Executive Talent. Stockholders are best served when we can attract, retain and motivate talented executives with compensation packages that are competitive and fair. Our compensation program for NEOs delivers salary, annual cash incentive and long-term incentive generally targeted at the median of the market. The Compensation/Succession Committee used input from management and from its independent compensation consultant to select comparator groups of companies. The use of multiple comparator groups allows the Compensation/Succession Committee to understand compensation levels for talent across a broad marketplace. We utilize three comparator groups ranging from a broad general industry group based on revenue scope to a custom industry group. When selecting these groups, we considered industry, business complexity and size. We believe that these comparator groups, used together, provide a composite view of the competitive market in which our company competes for executive talent. In addition to the market data points gathered through this analysis, the Compensation/Succession Committee considers individual and corporate performance, roles and responsibilities, growth potential and other qualitative factors when establishing executive pay levels. Each year, management and the Compensation/Succession Committee evaluate the comparator groups to ensure each group remains applicable. Any changes are carefully assessed in an effort to maintain continuity from year to year. No changes in the identity of the comparator groups were made for FY2012.5. However, we clarified our rationale for utilizing these peer groups as well as their roles in determining compensation. In the future, we anticipate changes may be necessary to accommodate transaction activity among certain companies. The comparator groups are:

Our primary comparator group is comprised of the constituents of the S&P 100 Industrials Index. As a large, global company engaged in multiple lines of business, our competition for talent, business and investment is broad. The S&P 100 Industrials companies provide a defined, broad sample of large companies facing business dynamics similar to our company. These companies, as of August 2012 when FY2012.5 pay decisions were made, are: 3M Co., Abbott Laboratories, Accenture plc, Aetna Inc., Alcoa, Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Amerisource Bergen, Apple Inc., AT&T, Inc., Baker Hughes Incorporated, Best Buy Co. Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, Inc., Caterpillar Inc., CenturyLink, Inc., Chevron Corporation, Cigna Corp., Cisco

23


Systems, Inc., Comcast Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Cummins Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Deere & Company, Dell Inc., DIRECTV, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Eli Lilly & Co., EMC Corporation, Emerson Electric Co., Express Scripts Holding, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Fluor Corporation, Ford Motor Co., General Dynamics Corp., General Electric Company, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Google Inc., Halliburton Company, Hess Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, Honeywell International Inc., Humana Inc., Intel Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, International Paper Company, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson Controls Inc., Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kohl’s Corp., Kraft Foods Inc.1, Lockheed Martin, Lowe’s Companies Inc., LyondellBasell Industries, Macy’s, Inc., Marathon Petroleum, McDonald’s Corp., McKesson Corporation, Merck & Co. Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Murphy Oil Corporation, News Corp., Nike Inc., Northrop Grumman, Nucor Corporation, Occidental Petroleum, Oracle Corporation, Pepsico Inc., Pfizer Inc., Philip Morris International, Phillips 66, Procter & Gamble Co., Raytheon Co., Safeway Inc., Schlumberger Limited, Sprint Nextel Corp., Staples, Inc., Sunoco, Inc., Sysco Corporation, Target Corp., Tesoro Corporation, The Boeing Company, The Coca Cola Company, The Dow Chemical Company, The Home Depot, Inc., The Kroger Co., The TJX Companies, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Time Warner Inc., Tyson Foods Inc., United States Steel Corp., United Technologies Corp., UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Valero Energy Corporation, Verizon Communications, Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Walt Disney Co., WellPoint Inc., Xerox Corp.

 offering competitive total compensation opportunities
 • recognizing

We also utilize a custom industry group comprised of 19 companies that operate in one or more of the same industries or lines of business as our company. We believe these comparisons provide industry-specific insight into pay levels and rewarding financial and operational performance through the use of short-term and long-term incentives

• setting challenging objectives to encourage a culture ofpay-for-performance
• rewarding sustained performance by granting equity and maintaining ownership guidelines for executives, as discussed under “Executive Stock Ownership Policy” on page 9
• making a significant portion of compensation variable and performance-based such that executives are subject to clear financial consequences for underperformance
• aligning the interests of named executive officers with those ofpractices differences within our shareholders
• attracting and retaining a strong executive team, as well as motivating the current executive team to develop leadership and successors
• encouraging and rewarding current business outcomes through cash salaries and performance-based annual incentivesindustries. These 19 companies are: Altria Group Inc., Bunge Ltd., Caterpillar Inc., ConAgra Foods, Inc., Deere & Co., Dow Chemical, DuPont (E.I.) De Nemours, General Mills, Hess Corp., International Paper Company, Kraft Foods Inc.1, Marathon Oil Corp., PepsiCo, Sara Lee Corp.2, Sunoco Inc., Tesoro Corp., Tyson Foods Inc., Valero Energy Corp., Weyerhaeuser.

Overall, our compensation program seeks

Finally, to provide a broad market context across all industries, we utilize data from all nonfinancial companies participating in the proper incentive and reward for our executives’ achievements, includingday-to-day business management, achievementTowers Watson Executive Compensation Database with revenue of short-term objectives, and focus on our long-term vision.$20 billion or greater.

What Is The History Of Our Compensation Programs?
To fully understand our current compensation programs, it

1.Kraft Foods Inc. spun off its North America foods division, which is now publicly traded as Mondelez International, which we anticipate to be a future comparator group company.
2.Sara Lee Corp. officially split into two companies in June 2012. Its U.S. meat business is publicly traded Hillshire Brands Co., which as a stand-alone entity, is too small to be considered a comparator company in the future.

We do not use these comparator groups to assess company performance. Company performance is important to understandassessed using the history of the programs and the impact of external factors on financial results.

From 1902 until 2003, our compensation programs consisted primarily of base salary and benefits, with periodic stock option grants. The primary rationale for this structure was the challenge of setting business objectives and aligning compensation with performance in an industry where results are highly-impacted by external factors, such as weather, crop disease, government programs, and other factors beyond management’s control.
In 2003, the Committee saw a need to add variable, performance-based compensation to the compensation programs — both to help drive our company’s business strategy and to respond to market competition fortwo key talent. Thus, over the last seven years, we have significantly changed our programs to tie a greater portion of total compensation directly to performance. In FY03, the Committee introduced a long-term incentive equity-based program. The size of awards under our equity program is not only dependent on financial performance but the valuemetrics of equity depends on the Company’s stock price. In addition, vesting provisions serve as a retention incentive to keep key talent engagedAdjusted EBITDA and focused.
Beginning in FY08, the Committee introduced an annual cash incentive program. Actions were initially taken at the executive officer level, and have been gradually implemented deeper into the employee population. This program focuses employees on annual financial, strategic, and individual objectives.


17


Each year, the Committee assesses the various compensation programs and may make adjustments to ensure the programs are aligned with performance. While the Committee has always retained discretion over the incentive programs, in FY09 informed judgment (or discretion) was introduced as a formal component of both the annual and long-term incentive programs in order to minimize the possibility that participants in these programs would be unfairly rewarded or penalized for fluctuations in Company performance due to external or extraordinary factors beyond management’s control. Under the annual incentive program, our performance is measured against pre-established1-year business plan objectives. In our long-term incentive program, the Committee assesses performance over a3-year period in determining the size of our annual grant. The use of informed judgment is discussed in further detail on page 22.
What Compensation And Benefits Are Provided To Named Executives Officers And Why?
The Committee utilizes the following forms of compensation and benefits: base salary, annual cash incentives, long-term equity incentives, benefits and perquisites. The various elements serve different objectives.
Base salaries and benefits are intended to attract and retain employees by providing a stable source of income and security over time. Annual cash incentives are designed to motivate and reward executives to increase shareholder value by achieving annual operational and financial objectives, and by outperforming external benchmarks over a1-year period. The use of equity compensation aligns the interests of executives with those of shareholders by driving long-term shareholder value, supporting stock ownership, and encouraging retention. The size of long-term equity incentive grants varies based on performance against internal and external metrics. See “What Perquisites Are Provided To Named Executive Officers?” on page 27 for a discussion of the types of perquisites provided to the named executive officers.
Target Compensation
How Are Target Compensation Levels Determined?
Total direct compensation consists of salary, annual cash incentive, and long-term equity incentives.Adjusted ROIC. In seeking to provide a competitive target total direct compensation package, the Compensation/Succession Committee reviews comparator companygroup compensation data, both with respect to total direct compensation and compensation elements, as a general reference to make compensation decisions, but does not establish specific compensation parameters based on such data. In this regard, the Compensation/Succession Committee considers target total direct compensation to be competitive if it is within a range of 80-130% of total direct compensation of the market 50th percentile for comparable positions and responsibilities among comparator groups described below.above. While positioning to the comparator market data is considered, other factors ultimately determine how a named executive officer is paid, including individual responsibilities, an executive’s experience and tenure, individual performance, and business objectives.
The Committee used input from management and from its independent compensation consultant to select comparator groups

3.

NEO Compensation Should Reflect Our Results. Our executive compensation program emphasizes variable, performance-based pay and is targeted and assessed in the aggregate, although the Compensation/Succession Committee reviews each component independently as well. Base salary is reviewed annually and adjusted based on a variety of factors including a subjective evaluation of each NEO’s overall performance and tenure. The CEO provides the Compensation/Succession Committee with a recommendation of annual base salary adjustments, individual and group performance factors

24


and short and long-term incentive award target levels for all officers, other than the CEO. The Compensation/Succession Committee takes the CEO’s recommendations, along with information provided by the compensation consultant and management into consideration when making annual base salary adjustments, individual and group performance factor adjustments and any adjustments to annual cash incentive award opportunity levels. The annual cash incentive plan for FY2012.5 targeted awards at 65% to 150% of each NEO’s base salary, but actual awards may range from zero to 240% of the target level depending on performance against the specific goals. Annual cash incentives are paid if, and to the extent that, corporate goals approved by the Compensation/Succession Committee are attained. Equity compensation is also assessed in a similar manner and is designed to reward measurable results.

Elements of companies. The use of multiple comparator groups allows the Committee to understand compensation levels for talent across a broad marketplace. We utilize three comparator groups ranging from a broad general industry group based on revenue scope to a custom industry group. When selecting these groups, we considered industry, business complexity and size. We believe that these comparator groups reflect companies where our company competes for executive talent and have similar pay models.

Each year, management and the Committee evaluate the comparator groups to ensure each group remains relevant. Any changes are carefully assessed in an effort to maintain continuity from year to year. No changes in the identity of the comparator groups were made for 2010. The comparator groups are:
Compensation

Executive Compensation Elements

ElementPurposeCharacteristics

Base Salary

Fixed pay to recognize an individual’s role and responsibilities  Nonfinancial companies participating inReviewed annually and set based on competitiveness versus the Towers Perrin Executive Compensation Database with revenue of $20 billion or greaterexternal market, individual performance and internal equity


18


• S&P 100 Industrials
  

Annual Cash Incentive

Paid upon achievement of pre- defined, operational and financial goals  Custom industry comparator group, consistingPerformance-based award opportunity that varies based on company and individual achievements

Long-Term Incentive

Create current and future alignment with stockholdersTypically a mix of the following 19 companies:stock options and restricted stock
Custom Industry Comparator Group
    
Altria Group Inc  General MillsAward level based on prior 3 years’ performance, largely based on our TSR compared to the S&P 100 Industrials and other relevant benchmarks in any given year

  Sara Lee Corp
Bunge Ltd. 

Benefits

 Hess Corp

  Sunoco Inc
Caterpillar Inc

Provide for basic health, welfare and income security needs

Supplemental retirement benefits provided to employees whose benefits under broad-based retirement plan are limited under applicable tax law

  International Paper Company

  Tesoro Corp
ConAgra Foods, IncKraft Foods IncTyson Foods Inc
Deere & Co. Marathon Oil Corp.Valero Energy Corp
Dow ChemicalPepsiCoWeyerhaeuser
DuPont (E.I.NEOs participate in the broad-based health and welfare plans available to all employees. In addition, they are eligible to participate in the Supplemental Retirement Plan and the Deferred Compensation Plan (these plans are described herein under the captions “Supplemental Retirement Plans” and “Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plans”) De Nemours. NEOs are also eligible for limited perquisites as described above.
The company does

25


How are the Elements Used to Deliver Total Pay?

Our NEOs excluding Mr. D.J. Smith, received on average 81% ofactualtotal direct compensation in variable pay and 65% ofactual total direct compensation in equity awards for FY2012.5. Although the Compensation/Succession Committee has not use this comparator group to assess company performance. Company performance is assessed using five benchmarks as described beginning on page 20.

Is The Majority Of Our Named Executive Officers’ Compensation Based On Performance?
A substantial percentage of the target total compensation for the named executive officers is variable and dependent on performance. The Committee reviews the portion of compensation allocated to: (i) fixed versus variable performance-based compensation, (ii) short-term versus long-term compensation, and (iii) cash versus equity-based compensation. We do not haveadopted a predetermined policy for allocating the allocation.
various elements of total direct compensation, we do place greater emphasis on variable pay for executives with more significant responsibilities, reflecting their greater capacity to affect our performance and results. The charts below present the mix ofactualpay received for FY2012.51.

LOGO

1.
FY10 Percentage of Variable Target
Compensation Compared to Total Direct
Executive
Compensation
P. A. Woertz88%
S. R. Mills71%
D. J. Smith69%
J. D. Rice66%
M. D’Ambrose62%Pay is defined as FY2012.5 base salary plus cash incentive earned for FY2012.5 performance and LTI awards for FY2012.5 (granted in 2013). Mr. Smith’s retirement was effective December 31, 2012, and, as such, he did not receive a FY2012.5 LTI award.
Elements of Compensation

Base Salary

How Areare Base Salaries Determined?

Base salaries are established based on a named executive officer’san NEO’s position, skills, performance, experience, tenure and responsibilities. Competitiveness of base salary levels areis assessed annually relative to salaries within the marketplace for similar executive positions. Increases may be considered for various factors such as individual performance, changes in responsibilities,and/or changes in competitive marketplace levels. The Company’sOur company’s historical emphasis on base salaries and its more recent emphasis on increasing the proportion of variable compensation elements have led the Compensation/Succession Committee to hold base salaries steady over the past threefour fiscal years.

years ended June 2012 for the CEO and NEOs, except with respect to certain promotions and role changes.

26


What Were Thethe Base Salary Increases Forfor Named Executives?

Base salary levels for

Based on FY2012 performance, the named executive officers have not changed during the past three fiscal years, except for the CFO who received an increase upon his promotion to CFO during FY08. For FY11, theCompensation/Succession Committee again determined not to increase base salaries in September 2012 for the named executive officers, given its focus on variable, performance-based compensation.


19

COO (5%), CFO (3.3%) and President Global Oilseeds (3.3%). For FY2012.5 performance the Compensation/Succession Committee determined to hold base salaries of the NEOs steady, with exception of the President Global Oilseeds who received a 2.0% increase, in order to recognize his individual and business performance.


Annual Cash Incentives

How Do We Calculate Annual Cash Incentives?

In 2012, we made the decision to transition to a calendar fiscal year. As part of this transition, we implemented a six-month financial and compensation period (FY2012.5). As such, July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 reflects a partial year. Compensation opportunity levels and related performance goals were established for this six-month period.

Beginning with the six-month transition period ended December 31, 2012, we adopted a new annual incentive program. The program is a significant shift from our prior program design in that it is a simple profit-sharing design. No awards can be earned if we do not achieve a threshold level of Adjusted EBITDA, which provides for the payment of dividends and after-tax interest expenses. Once the threshold level of Adjusted EBITDA is earned, 1.1% of Adjusted EBITDAabove that level will be used to fund the annual incentive pool. This value will then be adjusted based on Adjusted ROIC performance; if our Adjusted ROIC is more than 2% below our weighted average cost of capital, the pool will be reduced by 10%, and if it is more than 2% above our weighted average cost of capital, the pool will be increased by 10%. Board of Directors’ discretion is no longer imbedded in the formula. The individual performance factor for NEOs continues to be 0.80 to 1.20 , and is assessed by the Compensation/Succession Committee incorporating elements such as safety, compliance with The ADM Way, and other individual and group factors.

Annual cash incentives are determined by the degree to which company financial performance expectations are achieved and the Compensation/Succession Committee’s independent assessment of our company’s performance. This outcome may then be adjusted within a range of -20% to +20% based on the Compensation/Succession Committee’s assessment of individual and group performance. The formula used to calculate an annual cash incentive payout for NEOs can be expressed as follows:

 1.1% of Adjusted EBITDA above $550M
$1.125B
  X  Adjusted ROIC Factor
1.043
  =  Total Bonus Pool$12.9M  ÷  Total Challenge Award Level$17.2M  =  75.0%  X  Individual Multiplier1.151  =  86.25%

1 — For illustrative purposes, a 1.15 individual multiplier is used. Individual multipliers vary by NEO based on the Compensation/Succession Committee’s assessment of individual performance and contribution to our company’s success.

How is the Individual Performance Multiplier Determined?

For FY2012.5, the Compensation/Succession Committee elected to award the CEO, COO and CFO the same individual multiplier of 1.15 in recognition of their collective efforts as an executive management team and their contribution to achieving significant financial results for FY2012.5 and planning for future strategic initiatives to grow stockholder value. The Compensation/Succession Committee incorporated its and the full Board’s assessment of our CEO’s performance and our full company performance when approving Ms. Woertz’s individual multiplier. Mr. Jansen’s individual multiplier of 2.0 reflects his contributions to the performance of the global oilseeds business unit. Mr. Smith received an individual multiplier of 1.0 due to his retirement in FY2012.5.

27


What Is Theis the Resulting Annual Cash Incentive Opportunity Forfor Each Named Executive Officer?NEO?

The purpose of the annual cash incentive program is to reward performance based on the achievement of company, business and individual objectives. At the start of each fiscal year, the Compensation/Succession Committee approves minimum, target, and maximum annual cash incentive levels for each named executive officer.NEO. Target annual cash incentive levels are expressed as a percentage of salary. Based on company individual and groupindividual performance, annual cash incentivesincentive payouts can range between 0% and 235.2%240% of the target annual cash incentive.

                     
     Target Annual Cash
     Maximum Annual Cash
    
  Minimum Annual
  Incentive as % of
  Target Annual Cash
  Incentive as % of
  Maximum Annual
 
Executive
 Cash Incentive ($)  Salary  Incentive ($)  Salary  Cash Incentive ($)* 
 
P. A. Woertz $0   150% $1,950,000   353% $4,586,400 
S. R. Mills $0   67% $500,000   157% $1,176,000 
D. J. Smith $0   59% $530,000   138% $1,246,560 
J. D. Rice $0   59% $520,000   138% $1,223,040 
M. D’Ambrose $0   59% $410,000   138% $964,320 
*Includes any group or individual performance factor adjustments as described below
How Do We Calculate Annual Cash Incentives?
Annual cash incentives are determined by company-wide business objectives and the Committee’s independent assessment of our company’s performance. This outcome is then adjusted within a range of -20% to +20% based on individual and group performance. Because of the degree of discretion accorded to the Committee in determining annual cash incentive payouts, the amount of such payouts are reported in the “Bonus” column of the Summary Compensation Table on page 31.
(EQUATION)
How Is The Company Performance Factor Determined?
At the beginning of FY10, the Committee approved the following company-wide business objectives: (1) EPS, (2) RONA, (3) Cost Management, (4) Safety, and (5) Performance Management.
Each objective has a weighting in the final company performance factor, with 30% reserved for the Committee’s discretion.
Weighting
Objective
25%EPS
25%RONA
7%Cost Management
10%Safety
3%Performance Management
30%Committee’s Discretion
100%
Total
In setting the objectives for FY10, the Committee utilized an enhanced framework based on our company’s business plan, industry perspective, historical earnings, earnings variability, shareholders’


20


expectations, analysts’ estimates, and our company’s cost of capital. In addition, the objectives considered the past year that had been severely affected by the recession. Our company focuses on company-wide performance objectives to encourage the executives to focus on overall company success, which ultimately drives shareholder value. Each objective is described in greater detail below:
1. EPS:  For the purpose of the cash incentive calculation, EPS is defined as basic earnings per share, after tax, excluding LIFO adjustments. The Committee selected EPS as a financial metric because it is a metric that many analysts and stockholders follow.
FY10 EPS was $2.96, resulting in the achievement of 138.2% of the business objective.
2. RONA:  For the purpose of the cash incentive calculation, RONA is defined as total four quarter trailing adjusted net earnings adjusted for after-tax changes in LIFO inventory valuation reserves expressed as a percentage of the four quarter average adjusted net assets as adjusted for after-tax LIFO inventory valuation reserves. Adjusted net earnings excludes investment income (interest income and dividends received), interest expense, and gains and losses on securities. Net assets (current assetsplus investments and other assetsplus net property, plant and equipment (total assets)less current and long-term liabilities) are adjusted to exclude cash and cash equivalents, long- and short-term marketable securities, segregated cash and investments and long and short-term debt.
The Committee selected RONA as a financial metric because it measures the efficient use of both fixed assets and working capital to support a focus on operating effectiveness, encourages margin enhancement, cost control, and the effective management of the net assets employed, is driven by how we effectively manage assets and how we grow net earnings, and closely tracks return on equity.
The Committee retains the discretion to exclude the impact (positive or negative) of extraordinary events from the calculation of EPS or RONA if the Committee determines that the events were beyond management’s control and if the exclusion is appropriate to align annual cash incentives with performance. For FY10, there were no exclusions of extraordinary events.
FY10 RONA was 12.01%, resulting in the achievement of 180.4% of the business objective.
3. Cost Management:  For FY10, cost management was added as a financial objective to directly focus executives on cost, particularly in light of the recent economic environment. Cost Management represents 7% of the bonus, and performance is measured as the lesser level of performance against two metrics. On the first metric, the Company achieved $89.78, relative to the manufacturing cost per ton, representing an aggregate savings of approximately $233 million compared to FY09, which reflects 174% achievement. While the Company did achieve a reduction in SG&A costs, such reduction was not sufficient to surpass the threshold reduction target of $30 million. As a result, no bonus was awarded with respect to the Cost Management objective.
4. Safety objectives:  The safety objective focuses on achieving improvement in employee, contractor and process safety. Improvement is measured by metrics for recordable rate of injury, lost work day rate, and process safety. The safety objective also includes an objective tied to the advancement of our Values Based Safety® (a registered trademark of Quality Safety Edge) program. In the Values Based Safety® program, employees observe their coworkers’ behaviors and provide feedback to reinforce safe behaviors.
FY10 Safety achievement was 131.8% of the business objective.
5. Performance Management:  In FY10, a defined set of senior leaders, including all the named executive officers, was asked to focus on internal performance management and strong succession planning. Part of this process included a minimum of quarterly performance dialogues or divisional updates with their direct reports. The Committee determined that this objective was successfully met and that the leadership team demonstrated a continued effort towards enhancing performance management and succession planning. This metric produces an “all or nothing” measure.
FY10 Performance Management was met, and thus the objective was achieved.


21


6. Committee’s Discretion:  In addition to the five business objectives discussed above, the Committee also utilizes discretion to ensure that the annual cash incentive appropriately reflects our company’s performance and management’s efforts in achieving that performance, and is not overly influenced by external market conditions. The Committee conducts a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of both internal and external factors including absolute performance,year-over-year performance, management’s control over events not contemplated in the business plan which materially impacted EPS and RONA, and performance relative to multiple external benchmarks. In addition to RONA and EPS, the Committee focuses on TSR, net earnings, and return on equity. The Committee also reviews nonfinancial performance in the areas such as safety, corporate responsibility, employee training, and execution of strategic plan.
For FY10, the Committee determined an achievement rating of 140%. In making this decision, the Committee recognized that earnings growth was balanced with a 12% RONA, reflecting quality financial performance, and also noted that the named executive officers continued progress towards other financial and strategic objectives.
The Company Performance Factor for FY10 was 137.83% as shown in the following table:
                     
       Range of
        
       Possible
        
       Payout
      Weighted
 
     FY10 Minimum to
 as % of
   FY10 Actual Payout
  Amount of
 
Objective
 Weighting  
Maximum Objective
 
Target
 
FY10 Actual Performance
 
as % of Target
  
Total Payout*
 
 
EPS  25%  $1.89-$3.38 0%-200% $2.96  138.2%  34.55%
 
 
RONA  25%  7%-12.5% 0%-200% 12.01%  180.4%  45.10%
 
 
      $94 manufacturing cost/ metric ton - $89 0%-200% $89.78  174.0%  0.0 
Cost Management  7%  manufacturing cost / metric ton              
      SG&A Reduction: $30M - $90M 0%-200% $28.6 M     0.0 
 
 
          Employees (Global) Improvement        
          Recordable Rate 9.53%        
          Lost Work Day Rate 26.19%        
          Contractor (OCIPcontractors only)          
Safety  10%  Employee/contractor
process minimum of
5-25% improvement from FY09 for Employee Safety, Contractor Safety, and Process Safety
 0-190% Recordable Rate
Lost Work Day Rate




Process Safety
 18.60%
3.15%
  131.8%  13.18%
          (weighted incidents/hour) 38.96%        
                     
      Meet or does not meet achievement for Values Based Safety implementation Goals   Behavior - implementation of VBS mandates 
Met
        
 
 
Performance Management  3%  0%-100% completion 0 or 100% 
100%
  100.0%  3.00%
 
 
Committee Discretion  30%  Informed judgment 0-200% Informed judgment  140.0%  42.00%
 
 
Totals  100%    0-196%            
FY10 Company Performance Factor
                  137.83%
*Weighting multiplied by FY10 Actual Payout as % of Target


22


How Are Individual and Business Group Performance Factors Determined?
For FY10, the Committee awarded a team score of 110% for the named executive officers, recognizing their collective efforts as a management team in achieving significant financial results for the current year and planning for future strategic initiatives to grow shareholder value.
What Were The Cash Incentive Payments To Named Officers For FY10?
Based on the determination of the company individual and business groupindividual performance factors as described above, each named executive officerNEO received an annual cash incentive for FY10FY2012.5 equal to 151.61% (137.83% x 110%)75.0% of his or her target annual cash incentive.
         
  Target
 FY10 Actual
  Annual
 Annual
Executive
 Incentive Incentive
 
P. A. Woertz $1,950,000  $2,956,454 
S. R. Mills $500,000  $758,065 
D. J. Smith $530,000  $803,549 
J. D. Rice $520,000  $788,388 
M. D’Ambrose $410,000  $621,613 
incentive, which was then adjusted by each NEOs individual multiplier and prorated to reflect the six-month transition period.

Executive

  Target Cash
Incentive
Opportunity
(% of Salary)
  Minimum
Cash
Incentive
Opportunity
   Target Cash
Incentive
Opportunity
   Maximum
Cash
Incentive
Opportunity
   Actual
FY2012.5
Cash
Award
 

P.A. Woertz

   150.0 $0    $975,000    $2,340,000    $840,938  

J.R. Luciano

   106.0 $0    $500,000    $1,200,000    $431,250  

R.G. Young

   97.0 $0    $375,000    $900,000    $323,438  

D.J. Smith

   58.8 $0    $265,000    $636,000    $198,750  

M.J. Jansen

   65.0 $0    $200,000    $480,000    $180,000  

Equity-Based Long-Term Incentives

Our long-term incentive program (the “LTI(“LTI Program”) aligns the interests of executives with those of shareholdersstockholders by drivingrewarding the achievement of long-term shareholderstockholder value, supporting stock ownership, and encouraging long-term service with the company. In the following sections, we discuss the process for determining equity grants delivered under our LTI Program.

In terms of grant size and grant form, our LTI awards are determined based upon the Compensation/Succession Committee’s assessment of performance during the prior three fiscal years. For example, equity grants made in August 2010early FY2012.5 (August 2012) reflected the Compensation/Succession Committee’s assessment of FY08-FY10FY2010-FY2012 performance. This concept of making grants based on the assessment of prior performance is similar in approach to our cash annual incentive plan (i.e., cash incentive awards paid in early FY11plan. As such, our equity-based long-term incentive grants are based upon performance achieved in FY10).based. The Compensation/Succession Committee’s assessment of performance considers multiple performance factors as well as economic conditions, and is not strictly formulaic. Our equity grants reflect a retrospective assessment of3-year performance. Due to current SEC disclosure rules, thesehistorical three-year performance comparison. The August 20102012 grants will not appear in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table or beand are reflected in the Summary Compensation Table until next yearinformation for FY2012.5 because the SEC requires companies to report LTI awards granted duringfor the fiscal year notduring which they were granted, even if they are based on theperformance during earlier fiscal year’s performance.

As a result, we will discuss grants made in both September 2009 and in August 2010.
• Grants made in September 2009 are reported as FY10 compensation in our Summary Compensation Table on page 31 and Grants of Plan-Based Awards During Fiscal 2010 table on page 33 because the grant dates occurred during FY10. These grants reflect performance prior to FY10, specifically for the three-year performance period, FY07-FY09.
• Grants made in August 2010 reflect performance for the3-year period ending June 2010. These awards will be reported as FY11 compensation in the Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards table in next year’s proxy statement in accordance with current SEC disclosure rules.


23

years.


How Did We Determine LTI Awards Granted In September 2009?in August 2012?

For the awards granted in August 2012, we reduced the maximum LTI opportunity for all executives and eliminated “target” award levels. We made this change to: clarify the emphasis on three-year TSR as the key determinant of grant sizes, acknowledge that the performance against TSR would likely never require grants at the existing maximum opportunity levels, and reduce the overall impact that discretion may have on equity award values.

At the start of the fiscal year, targetFY2012, base, challenge and maximumpremium LTI grant values are determinedwere established for each namedNEO. Under this structure, competitive grants are only provided if our TSR is at or above median of the applicable market comparisons reviewed by the Compensation/Succession Committee. The Compensation/Succession Committee may grant “base” awards to maintain the appropriate alignment between management and stockholders through the opportunity to realize future equity value and to provide for necessary retention of our key executive officer. Targettalent.

28


Challenge awards are intended to result in competitive total direct compensation levels when combined with base salaries and annual target cash incentives. In orderFor the August 2012 awards, the Compensation/Succession Committee determined that the NEOs would receive a “base award.” These awards primarily reflect our three-year TSR, compared to receive any LTI grants, however, net earnings (for the current fiscal year, measuredS&P 100 Industrials, but the Compensation/Succession Committee also considers our one-year, three-year and five-year relative TSR compared to the S&P 100 Industrials, our custom comparator group and the peer group identified by Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. in accordanceits review of our FY2012 executive compensation programs, as well as our challenges in delivering against our operating and financial goals and management’s significant work in FY2012 to better position our company for future growth. The Compensation/Succession Committee also considers the awards to provide a strong alignment with U.S. GAAP) must exceedstockholders, particularly the sum ofportion (50%) granted in stock options which have no value to the dividend paymentsexecutive if stockholder value is not created, and after-tax interest expensesthe portion (50%) granted in restricted stock units (RSUs) to provide for the current fiscal year.

             
Executive
 Minimum Award Target Award Maximum Award
 
P. A. Woertz $0  $7,550,000  $14,750,000 
S. R. Mills $0  $1,000,000  $2,800,000 
D. J. Smith $0  $1,500,000  $3,300,000 
J. D. Rice $0  $1,200,000  $3,000,000 
M. D’Ambrose $0  $730,000  $2,530,000 
necessary retention of key talent.

Equity Grants Made in August 2012 (Reflecting FY2010-FY2012 Performance)

   FY2012 Long-Term Incentive     

Executive

  Minimum
Award
   Base
Award
   Challenge
Award
   Premium
Award
   August 2012
Award1
 

P.A. Woertz

  $0    $7,550,000    $9,000,000    $11,000,000    $7,550,000  

J.R. Luciano

  $0    $3,500,000    $3,700,000    $4,400,000    $3,500,000  

R.G. Young

  $0    $2,000,000    $2,200,000    $2,900,000    $2,000,000  

D.J. Smith

  $0    $1,500,000    $1,700,000    $2,400,000    $1,500,000  

M.J. Jansen

  $0    $1,100,000    $1,154,000    $1,274,000    $1,100,000  

1Defined as the fair value of the total long-term incentive on the grant date.

The LTI Program allows executives an opportunity to earn additional long-term incentive grants that reward differing levels of performance and, if earned at maximum performance, could result in top quartile pay of total direct compensation. The Compensation/Succession Committee utilizes its discretion and informed judgment to assess the prior 3three years of absolute and relative performance in determining if any awards should be provided above or below the “target award.”challenge award level. A formulaic approach iswas not utilized due to the challenges of setting business objectives and aligning compensation with performance in an industry where results are highly-impacted by external factors, such as weather, crop disease, government programs, and other factors beyond management’s control. As a result, the Compensation/Succession Committee has determined that a rigorous review of a wide range of absolute and relative performance measures is appropriate to make an informed decision. For FY10 awards made in September 2009,August 2012, the Compensation/Succession Committee used its discretion and informed judgment in making this decisiondeciding to grant a “target award” with no additional enhancement. base award to each NEO then employed by the Company.

The Committee focused primarily on the absolute decline in stock price and mixed results on TSR versus external benchmarks, but also took into account additional factors, including decline in net earnings, company performance and execution of the business plan in light of the overall economy and leadership development and succession planning.

TheCompensation/Succession Committee retains the discretion to make equity grants in any form or percentage mix it deems appropriate. Generally, the Compensation/Succession Committee expects to providehas provided equity grants that are delivered 50% in stock options and 50% in restricted shares. The September 2009 grants were awarded in 50% stock options, 25% restricted shares, and 25% performance share units (“PSUs”)RSUs, based on the fair market value on the date of grant, date. PSUswhich was the mix used for the August 2011 awards. The grants made in August 2012 were grantedalso delivered 50% in lieu of a comparable value of earnedstock options and 50% in restricted shares to further enhance management’s focus on total shareholder return (“TSR”) on both an absolute and relative basis. TSR can be defined as the total return of owning company stock over a period of time, comprised of the capital gain (share price at the end of a period less the share price at the beginning of a period) plus dividends. Executives have an opportunity to earn 1/3 of the PSUs over a1-year performance period, 2/3 over a2-year performance period and all PSUs over a3-year performance period if our TSR exceeds the average TSR of four benchmarks over the respective performance periods. The four TSR benchmarks are:
1. S&P 500
2. Russell 3000 companies with an S&P industry classification of Food, Beverage & Tobacco
3. S&P 500 Consumer Staples
4. Average of Bunge Ltd., ConAgra Foods, Inc. and Corn Products International Inc.
units.

Vesting conditions of our equity awards generally are as follows:

Stock options are granted at an exercise price equal to fair market value in accordance with the 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan. The options typically vest incrementally over five years and can be exercised during a ten-year period following the date of grant.

Restricted stock and RSUs typically vest three years after the date of grant.

Equity awards granted under the LTI Program vest immediately if control of the company changes or upon the death of the executive. Awards continue to vest if the executive leaves the company because

29


 • Stock options were granted at an exercise price equal to fair market value in accordance with the 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan. The options vest incrementally over five years and can be exercised during a ten-year period following the date of grant.
• Restricted shares vest three years after the date of grant.


24


• Any earned PSUs will vest and be paid in shares of our common stock if the executive remains employed for the full3-year performance period.
• Stock options, restricted shares and PSUs granted under the LTI Program vest immediately if control of the company changes or upon the death of the executive. Awards continue to vest if the executive leaves the company because of disability or retirement.retirement (age 55 or greater with 10 or more years of service). The Compensation/Succession Committee believes that these provisions are appropriate to assure named executive officersNEOs stay focused on the long-term success of the company during a sale of the company or amidst certain personal circumstances. These provisions also increase the value of the awards to the named executive officers that,NEOs, which in turn, enhances retention. For grants with respect to FY2012 and beyond, a non-compete provision was added allowing the ability to cancel any unvested awards to retirees in the event they work for a competitor.

Equity Grants madeRewards for Returns

In September of 2012, we established a one-time award program to create additional emphasis on working together to manage costs and earn higher returns on our invested capital. This company-wide program, in FY10 (grants madewhich all of our bonus-eligible employees participate, was not offered to individuals designated as NEOs at the time of the award. This program, which we call “Rewards for Returns,” provides the opportunity for an individual to earn 125% of his or her annualized FY2012.5 annual incentive target over a three-year period based on the achievement of ROIC goals. To earn the award, we must consistently achieve an Adjusted ROIC equal to or better than WACC in 2013, 2014, and 2015. In one of the three years, we must achieve an Adjusted ROIC of WACC+2 percent. These awards will be settled in March 2016 only if these goals are achieved and the participant is still employed at our company. Mr. Jansen is the only current NEO participating in this program. His total opportunity under this program is $500,000 which was granted in September 2009 reflecting FY07-FY09 performance)

(These grants are presented in the Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards During Fiscal 2010 Table)
                         
    Value      
  Target
 Actual
   Stock
 Restricted
  
  Award
 Grant
 Accounting
 Options
 Shares
 Performance
Executive
 (base award) Value Expense (#) (#) Share Units (#)
 
P. A. Woertz $7,550,000  $7,550,000  $6,706,143   337,657   69,882   98,124 
S. R. Mills $1,000,000  $1,000,000  $888,244   44,723   9,256   12,997 
D. J. Smith $1,500,000  $1,500,000  $1,332,361   67,085   13,884   19,495 
J. D. Rice $1,200,000  $1,200,000  $1,065,883   53,668   11,107   15,596 
M. D’Ambrose $730,000  $730,000  $648,427   32,648   6,757   9,488 
How Did We Determine LTI Awards Granted In August 2010?
Similar to the process followed for awards made in September 2009 as described above, at the start of FY10, target and maximum LTI grant values were determined for each named executive officer. LTI values were increased for only the CFO to better align his compensation with the competitive market. Target awards are intended to result in competitive total direct compensation levels when combined with base salaries and annual incentives. In order to receive any LTI grants, however, net earnings must exceed the sum of the dividend payments and after-tax interest expenses.
             
  Minimum
  Target Award
  Maximum
 
Executive
 Award  (base award)  Award 
 
P. A. Woertz $0  $7,550,000  $14,750,000 
S. R. Mills $0  $1,350,000  $3,150,000 
D. J. Smith $0  $1,500,000  $3,300,000 
J. D. Rice $0  $1,200,000  $3,000,000 
M. D’Ambrose $0  $730,000  $2,530,000 
For these awards, the Committee used its discretion and informed judgment to determine that the named executive officers would receive a “target award” with no additional enhancement. While the Committee noted that our company’s relative TSR exceeded that of some major competitors and indices, the Committee also noted that absolute TSR over the FY08-FY10 period was negative. In light of the Committee’s view of absolute and relative performance for the FY08-FY10 period and the complexity resulting from the use of four TSR benchmarks in the PSU program, the Committee granted equity2012 in the form of performance share units.

Equity Grants Made in February 2013 (Reflecting 2010-2012.5 Performance)

Beginning with the six-month transition period ended December 31, 2012, the Compensation/Succession Committee increased the award opportunities for the CEO, COO, and CFO under the long-term incentive award program. The Compensation/Succession Committee made these adjustments in recognition of: a) competitive market comparisons that suggest our historical target award opportunities are below market, b) the increased performance orientation and challenge associated with earning incentive awards, and c) the continued significant individual contributions of these officers to our company.

Actual awards for FY2012.5 were granted at the base level. The base level provides an award that provides below-market compensation to reflect our below-median TSR. The Committee made this award in recognition of our strong financial performance and ongoing improvements in operations and the desire to create continued retention and shareholder alignment among our executive team. To further enhance the performance orientation of our programs, the awards for FY2012.5 were granted in a mix of vehicles: 50% RSUs, 25% stock options and 50% restricted stock.

As25% performance share units. The performance share units may only vest at the end of a result, grant values of LTI awards granted in August 2010 for FY08-FY10three-year performance were the same relativeperiod if performance warrants. The performance vesting criteria are similar to the September 2009 grants“Rewards for Returns” program described above. If ROIC goals are achieved as of March 31, 2016, the named executive officers (withawards will vest. If the exception ofperformance goals are not achieved, the CFO, who received an increase in his target LTI award from $1,000,000 to $1,350,000).


25


Equity Grants made in FY11 (grants made in August 2010 reflecting FY08-FY10 performance)
(These grantsis forfeited and no shares will be presented inearned.

   FY2012.5 Long-Term Incentive1     

Executive

  Minimum
Award
   Base Award   Challenge
Award
   Premium
Award
   February
2013 Award
 

P.A. Woertz

  $0    $4,000,000    $4,725,000    $5,725,000    $4,000,000  

J.R. Luciano

  $0    $2,050,000    $2,150,000    $2,500,000    $2,050,000  

R.G. Young

  $0    $1,250,000    $1,350,000    $1,700,000    $1,250,000  

D.J. Smith2

       N/A      

M.J. Jansen

  $0    $550,000    $577,000    $637,000    $550,000  

1.Values are pro-rated to reflect the partial year.
2.Due to Mr. Smith’s retirement effective December 31, 2012, he was not eligible to receive an LTI award for FY2012.5.

30


Does the Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table in our 2011 proxy statement)

                     
    Value    
  Target
 Actual
 Approximate
 Stock
 Restricted
  Award
 Grant
 Accounting
 Options
 Shares
Executive
 (base award) Value Expense (#) (#)
 
P. A. Woertz $7,550,000  $7,550,000  $7,082,980   348,248   130,623 
S. R. Mills $1,350,000  $1,350,000  $1,266,515   62,270   23,357 
D. J. Smith $1,500,000  $1,500,000  $1,407,233   69,189   25,952 
J. D. Rice $1,200,000  $1,200,000  $1,125,797   55,351   20,762 
M. D’Ambrose $730,000  $730,000  $684,854   33,672   12,630 
With the exception of the CFO, the target and maximum LTI levels for the named executive officers remained unchanged compared to those for the previous fiscal year.
Does The Company Have Aa Policy Forfor When Grants Areare Made?

The Compensation/Succession Committee grants all equity awards to named executive officers,NEOs, and no attempt is made to time the granting of these awards in relation to the release of material, non-public information. The exercise price of all stock options is set at fair market value (as determined in accordance with the applicable incentive compensation plan) on the grant date. Under the 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan, fair market value is the closing market price of our common stock on the last trading day prior to the date of grant. The Compensation/Succession Committee meets during the first fiscal quarter of each fiscal year and determines the annual equity awards granted to named executive officers.NEOs. These awards are issued promptly following the date of the Compensation/Succession Committee’s meeting and approval. In addition to annual awards, the named executive officersNEOs may receive awards when they join the company or change their status, including promotions.

Benefits

What Retirement Benefits Areare Provided?

The company provides the following programs to named executive officersNEOs to support the attraction, retention and motivation of these employees. With few exceptions, our philosophy is to offer the same benefits to all U.S. salaried employees as is offered to our named executive officers.

NEOs.

Retirement Program

 Eligibility  
Retirement Program
Eligibility

Description

401(k) Plan/
Employee Stock
Ownership Plan
 All salaried employees  Qualified defined contribution plan where employees may defer up to 50% of eligible pay, up to $16,500$17,000 for 2010.2012. Employees who are 50 years of age or older can elect make-up contributions of up to $5,500 for 2010.2012. The company provides a 1% non-elective employer contribution and a match of 4% on the first 6% contributed by an employee. The employee contribution can be made pre-tax (401(k)) or after-tax (Roth 401(k)).
ADM Retirement Plan for
Salaried Employees
 All salaried employees  Those with 5 or more years of service as of January 1, 2009, participate in a qualified defined benefit plan where the benefit is based on number of years of service and base salary during the later stages of employment. Those with less than 5 years of service as of January 1, 2009 participate in a qualified cash balance pension plan where the benefit is based on an accrual of benefit based on that year’s base compensation.


26


Retirement Program Eligibility  Description
Retirement Program
Eligibility
Description
Supplemental
Retirement Plan
Employees whose retirement benefit is limited by applicable IRS lawNon-qualified deferred compensation plan that ensures participants in the Retirement Plan receive an aggregate retirement benefit that would have been received if not for certain limitations under applicable tax law.
Deferred
Compensation Plan
 Employees with salaries
above $175,000
  Eligible participants may defer up to 75% of their annual base salary and up to 100% of their annual cash incentive until elected future dates. Earning credits are added to the deferred compensation account balances based upon hypothetical investment elections available under these plans and chosen by the participant. These hypothetical investment options correspond with the investment options (other than Companycompany common stock) available under the 401(k) Plan/Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

31


What Other Benefits Areare Provided To Named Executive Officers?to NEOs?

We provide a benefits package for employees (including NEOs) and their dependents, portions of which may be paid for by the employee. Benefits include: life, accidental death and dismemberment, health (including prescription drug), dental, vision, and disability insurance; dependent and healthcare reimbursement accounts; tuition reimbursement; paid time-off; holidays; and a matching gifts program for charitable contributions. Named executive officersNEOs have the same benefits package as other employees.

What Perquisites Areare Provided To Named Executive Officers?to NEOs?

An

Perquisites are an additional form of income to the executives, as shown in the Summary Compensation Table and the executives are individually responsible for any taxes related to this income. Historically, an automobile iswas provided to named executive officers,NEOs, which they maycould also use for personal purposes. However, our CEO, COO and CFO have all voluntarily declined this benefit since FY2012. During FY2012.5, two of our NEOs received use of a company-provided automobile. Mr. Jansen, like all Business Unit heads in FY2012.5, was eligible for an automobile. The Company transferred to Mr. Smith, as provided for in his Separation Agreement, on or about December 31, 2012, the company-owned automobile used by him. We continue to provide Ms. Woertz and the other named executive officersNEOs, as approved by our CEO, with personal use of company-owned aircraft. Given the location of our headquarters in Decatur, Illinois, the Compensation/Succession Committee requires that Ms. Woertz have access to the aircraft for personal use for security and efficiency reasons. The named executive officersNEOs are responsible for any taxes on imputed income related to the provision of this perquisite. See the notes to the Summary Compensation Table on page 31 for a description onof other perquisites provided to the named executive officers.

Has ADM Evaluated Its Compensation Programs As They Relate To Risk?
Company management, in consultation with the Committee, has undertaken a risk assessment of our compensation programs and practices. Based on this assessment, we do not believe the company’s compensation programs create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse affect on the company. To reach this conclusion, an internal team of finance, operations, legal, human resources staff, joined by an external consultant, collected all company incentive programs to consider the underlying business risk against incentive plan design criteria such as goal setting, award caps, pay-performance leverage, the balance of cash versus stock awards, clawback criteria, senior management oversight, and Committee discretion. A detailed report was developed and presented to the Committee at its February 2010 meeting.
Total Direct Compensation
What Was Total Direct Compensation For FY10?
The Summary Compensation Table includes in FY10 total compensation the grant date fair value for equity awards granted in September 2009 for FY07-FY09 performance. As a result, we believe it is helpful to provide a supplemental compensation table showing total direct compensation for FY10 that includes the value of LTI grants made in August 2010 for FY08-FY10 performance. The following table shows:
• salary received in FY10
• annual cash incentive awards for FY10 performance paid in early FY11
• equity grants for FY08-FY10 performance awarded in early FY11

27

NEOs.


This table is not intended to replace the Summary Compensation Table, but rather to provide a summary of the Committee’s decisions about total direct compensation for our named executive officers as a result of each year’s completed performance.
                       
      Annual Cash
 Equity Grants
 Total Direct
  
Executive
 Year Salary Incentive (actual grant value) Compensation % Change
 
P. A. Woertz FY2010 $1,300,000  $2,956,454  $7,550,000  $11,806,454   8.4%
  FY2009 $1,300,000  $2,040,384  $7,550,000  $10,890,384    
S. R. Mills FY2010 $750,000  $758,065  $1,350,000  $2,858,065   32.0%
  FY2009 $750,000  $414,355  $1,000,000  $2,164,355    
D. J. Smith FY2010 $901,400  $803,549  $1,500,000  $3,204,949   8.4%
  FY2009 $901,400  $554,567  $1,500,000  $2,955,967    
J. D. Rice FY2010 $885,400  $788,388  $1,200,000  $2,873,788   14.0%
  FY2009 $885,400  $435,282  $1,200,000  $2,520,682    
M. D’Ambrose FY2010 $700,000  $621,613  $730,000  $2,051,613   10.4%
  FY2009 $700,000  $429,005  $730,000  $1,859,005    
Employment Agreements, Severance, andChange-in-Control Benefits

Do Any Named Executive Officers HaveWhat Employment Agreements?Agreements are in Place?

Only

With respect to our NEOs, only Ms. Woertz, our CEO, has an employment agreement, which was entered into in May 2006 when she joined our company. The employment agreement provides for employment “at will” and does not have a specified contract term. Ms. Woertz’s compensation has been determined, to a significant degree, by the terms of her employment agreement. At the time it was being negotiated, the Committee retained Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc., an outside compensation expert, specifically to advise it with respect to Ms. Woertz’s compensation. Prior to approving the employment agreement, the Compensation/Succession Committee considered the advice of this expert,a compensation consultant, analyzed information regarding the total compensation provided to the chief executive officers of other public companies of a comparable size, and considered the attributes Ms. Woertz would bring to the positions of President and Chief Executive Officer in the context of the competitive marketplace and the greater responsibilities of the President and Chief Executive Officer relative to other companyCompany executives.

Under herMs. Woertz’s employment agreement, she is provided benefits upon termination without cause or resignation for good reason as described beginning on page 42.herein under the caption “Termination of Employment and Change-in-Control Arrangements”. If the termination occurs within 2 years ofchange-in-control, these benefits are increased.

In addition, if the payments following achange-in-control termination exceed the IRS statutory limit and result in a penaltythe imposition of an additional excise tax, she will receive agross-up payment to cover the excise tax.

Ms. Woertz is also subject to a2-year non-compete and2-year non-solicitation provision following termination without cause or resignation for good reason.

What Other Severance Benefits are Provided to NEOs?

In connection with Mr. D’AmbroseSmith’s decision to retire, the company and Mr. Smith entered into a separation agreement on May 3, 2012 that governs the terms of his ceasing to be an active employee and an officer of the company. Pursuant to the separation agreement, Mr. Smith’s retirement was effective December 31, 2012, and in connection therewith: (i) Mr. Smith received $1,802,800 in cash, one half of which was paid shortly after the

32


separation agreement was signed and the other half was paid shortly after December 31, 2012; (ii) Mr. Smith received shortly after December 31, 2012 a cash payment equal to the value of his accrued but unused vacation; (iii) the company transferred to Mr. Smith on or about December 31, 2012, the company-owned car used by him and certain communications equipment used by him; and (iv) Mr. Smith’s healthcare coverage was extended until December 31, 2013 on the same terms as would have been available to him had he remained employed by the company through such date. The separation agreement also provides that except for payments and benefits under specified benefit plans and previously granted equity award agreements, Mr. Smith will not be entitled to payments or benefits beyond those specified in the separation agreement. Under the separation agreement, Mr. Smith is not subject to annon-compete and non-solicitation obligations for one year after his employment ends, and agrees to release of any claims he may have against the company.

With the exception of the CEO’s employment agreement, but did receive an offer letter at the time of his hire in 2006.we currently have no other contractual arrangements with our NEOs. The letter includes a provision which credits Mr. D’Ambrose with an additional five years of age and service credit under the definition of retirement used in company equity award and retirement plans. This provision is relevant to the vesting of equity awards, which continue to vest after retirement (defined as a termination after the executive reaches age 55 with 10 years of service).

Do The Remaining Named Executive Officers Have Severance Benefits?
TheCompensation/Succession Committee retains discretion to provide the remaining named executive officersNEOs severance benefits upon their termination of employment. To guide this discretion, the Compensation/Succession Committee has adopted a severance program. This program serves as a guideline for the severance benefits that may be provided to various levels of employees upon termination of their employment without cause or their resignation with good reason, but the program does not create a contractual right to receive any severance benefits on the part of the employee.


28


The guidelines contained in the program for executive officers include the following termination benefits, subject, in all cases, to the discretion of the Compensation/Succession Committee to increase or decrease these benefits:

cash severance equal to two times then-current base salary;

extension of healthcare coverage for up to one year following termination;

• cash severance equal to two times then-current base salary
• extension of healthcare coverage for up to one year following termination
• accelerated vesting of any equity grants made after 2004 that are scheduled to vest during the severance period or during the year following the severance period
• cash payment of an amount equal to 50% of the market value of pre-2004 equity grants that are unvested at termination

accelerated vesting of any equity grants made after 2004 that are scheduled to vest during the severance period or during the year following the severance period; and

cash payment of an amount equal to 50% of the market value of pre-2004 equity grants that are unvested at termination.

In addition, the Compensation/Succession Committee may requiregenerally requires each executive to enter into a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement in exchange for receiving severance under the program.

What Change-in-Control Benefits are Provided?

If achange-in-control occurs with respect to our company, the equity grants held by our executive officers generally will vest immediately pursuant to the terms of these awards. The Compensation/Succession Committee believes that this accelerated vesting is an appropriate provision to provide the executives with some assurance that they will not be disadvantaged with respect to their equity awards in the event of achange-in-control of the company. This assurance increases the value of these awards to the executives, which in turn enhances retention.

Additional Executive Compensation Policies

Does Thethe Company Have Aa Clawback Policy?

Our equity grant programs

For many years we have specificincluded clawback provisions applicablein our long-term incentive award agreements that provide us with the ability to terminationrecover long-term incentive compensation for a broad range of employment for cause, breachreasons. This aggressive approach to recoupment of restrictive covenantslong-term incentive compensation reflects our commitment to protecting stockholder value.

For awards granted in August FY2012 and activity that is detrimental to the company. The Committee will be reviewing our company’sbeyond, we have implemented an additional clawback policy for all cash and equity-based long-term incentive awards. Specifically, this policy provides for the recoupment of

33


any cash or equity incentive awards for a period of three years from the date of award. We will clawback incentive payments made to NEOs and certain other members of our senior management in FY11 in lightthe event of newa financial restatement or ethical misconduct. As regulatory legislation.

requirements regarding recoupment of executive compensation continue to evolve, we will review and update our policies to, at the very least, be compliant with all current requirements.

Are There Policies Inin Place That Prohibit The Sale Or Purchase OfRestrict Transactions Involving Our Stock?

Pursuant to our company’s Insider Trading Policy, employees and directors may not engage in short selling, speculative trading, or hedging transactions involving our stock, including writing or trading in options, warrants, puts and calls, prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps collars or exchange fundscollars, or entering into other transactions that are designed to hedge or offset decreases in the price of our company’s securities.

In addition, employees and directors are required to review any pledging of Company securities with the Company’s General Counsel prior to engaging in such activity.

Our Insider Trading Policy also provides that all transactions in our company’s securities by our directors, the named executive officersNEOs and certain other officers and employees must be pre-cleared by the Law Department.

our company’s law department.

What Role Does The Committee Consider Section 162(m) Of Theof the Internal Revenue Code In TheHave in the Design Ofof Executive Compensation Programs?

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code generally disallows a tax deduction to public corporations for compensation paid in excess of $1 million annually to the CEO and the three other most highly-compensated executive officers, excludingother than the Chief Financial Officer, except for qualifyingunless the compensation in excess of $1 million qualifies as “performance-based” compensation. Performance-based compensation for these purposes generally does not include salaries, incentive compensation for which the company’s stockholders have not approved the business criteria upon which applicable performance goals are based, and incentive compensation (other than stock options and stock appreciation rights) thatthe payment of which is not based on the satisfaction of objective performance goals or as to which a compensation committee has discretion to increase the amount of the payout. The Compensation/Succession Committee retains the discretion to provide compensation that may not be tax deductible if it feels these actions are in the best interests of our companythe Company and its stockholders. The Compensation/Succession Committee believes that the amount of any expected loss of a tax deduction under Section 162(m) will be insignificant to our company’sthe Company’s overall tax position.

Has the Company Evaluated Its Compensation Programs as They Relate to Risk?

On an ongoing basis, management assesses potential risks associated with compensation decisions and discusses them with the Compensation/Succession Committee if warranted. To date, we have not identified any incentive compensation programs that encourage inappropriate risk taking. We have established a policy under which we engage an outside consultant every other year to review our programs and independently assess the risk in them.

During FY2011, ADM engaged an outside consultant, The Hay Group (“Hay”), to assist the Compensation/Succession Committee in evaluating the risk in our compensation programs. In conducting an independent assessment, Hay reviewed all of our incentive compensation programs and determined there were no compensation programs that encourage inappropriate risk-taking or the manipulation of earnings. The detailed findings of this review were discussed with management and presented to the Compensation/Succession Committee in August 2011. The program changes that were made to our annual incentive plan beginning in FY2012.5 enhance the direct alignment of our incentives with earnings and the overall transparency of our program, which further mitigates the potential for undue risk in our incentive plans.

34


How Does Thethe Company Address Liabilities Associated With Retirement Programs?

The Compensation/Succession Committee is mindful that the non-qualified deferred compensation and supplemental retirement plans create financial statement liabilities. Therefore, the company attempts to hedge the deferred


29


compensation plan liabilities by directing the named executive officer’s elective deferrals into a separate account and then investing such account in a manner consistent with the hypothetical investments elected by participants. We do not set amounts aside in a “rabbi” trust for the benefit of participants in the deferred compensation or supplemental retirement plans. However, the deferred compensation plans have “rabbi” trust funding triggers in the event of a potential change in control of the company.Company. This trigger provides some measure of assurance to employees that amounts they have chosen to defer from their current compensation will be held for their benefit, although still subject to creditor claims as required under the applicable tax law. In maintaining the non-qualified plans, the Compensation/Succession Committee has duly considered that the federal income tax deduction available to the company occurs at the same time that participants are paid benefits from the applicable plan.

The company is required to fund its qualified pension plans in a manner consistent with the minimum funding requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Historically, the company has made contributions in excess of the minimum to maintain its plans at or near a full funding level relative to the accrued benefit obligation.

Compensation/Succession Committee Report

The Compensation/Succession Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management. Based upon this review and discussion, the Compensation/Succession Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement.

K. R. Westbrook, Chairman
D. E. Felsinger
A. Maciel
P. J. Moore

K. R. Westbrook, Chairman
A. L. Boeckmann
G.W. Buckley
M. H. Carter
D. E. Felsinger

Compensation/Succession Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

None of the members of the Compensation/Succession Committee is or has been an employee of our company or any of our subsidiaries. There are no interlocking relationships between our company and other entities that might affect the determination of the compensation of our executive officers.


30

35


Summary Compensation Table

The following table summarizes the compensation for the fiscal years noted in the table of our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and our three other most highly-compensated executive officers who were serving as executive officers on June 30, 2010December 31, 2012 (collectively, the “named executive officers”).

                                 
                 Change in
       
                 Pension Value
       
                 and
       
                 Nonqualified
       
                 Deferred
       
           Stock
  Option
  Compensation
  All Other
    
     Salary
  Bonus
  Awards
  Awards
  Earnings
  Compensation
  Total
 
Name and Principal Position
 Year  ($)  ($)  ($) (1)  ($) (1)  ($)  ($)  ($) 
 
P. A. Woertz  2010   1,300,000   2,956,454(2)  3,832,682   2,873,461   415,370(3)  67,683(4)  11,445,650 
Chairman, CEO and  2009   1,300,000   2,040,384   4,834,135   6,441,696   265,529   72,807   14,954,551 
President  2008   1,291,867   3,042,000   9,154,793   1,306,229   493,600   166,375   15,454,864 
S. R. Mills  2010   750,000   758,065(2)  507,651   380,593   613,896(3)  15,348(5)  3,025,553 
Executive Vice  2009   750,000   414,355   828,717   693,036   377,078   36,870   3,100,056 
President and CFO  2008   683,533   686,400   1,388,479   212,260   78,546   40,954   3,090,172 
D. J. Smith  2010   901,400   803,549(2)  761,468   570,893   694,258(3)  16,446(6)  3,748,014 
Executive Vice  2009   901,400   554,567   993,383   830,758   404,590   38,660   3,723,358 
President, Secretary and General  2008   901,400   826,800   1,925,511   353,228   39,997   54,492   4,101,428 
J. D. Rice  2010   885,400   788,388(2)  609,169   456,715   726,401(3)  23,763(7)  3,489,836 
Executive Vice  2009   885,400   435,282   977,453   817,426   440,065   39,095   3,594,721 
President  2008   885,400   811,200   1,891,312   289,132   3,493   53,389   3,933,926 
M. D’Ambrose  2010   700,000   621,613(2)  370,593   277,834   46,292(3)  16,559(8)  2,032,891 
Senior Vice                                
President                                

Name and Principal Position

 Year  Salary
($)
  Stock
Awards
($)(2)
  Option
Awards
($)(2)
  Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)
  Change in
Pension Value
and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings
($)
  All Other
Compensation
($)
  Total
($)
 

P. A. Woertz

  2012.5    650,000    4,010,291    2,751,826    840,938(3)   121,554(4)   54,322(5)   8,428,931  

Chairman, CEO and

  2012    1,300,000    4,011,050    2,921,235    638,469    476,947    85,223    9,432,924  

President

  2011    1,300,000    4,011,432    3,071,547    2,469,902    166,120    60,861    11,079,862  
  2010    1,300,000    3,832,682    2,873,461    2,956,454    415,370    67,683    11,445,650  

J. R. Luciano

  2012.5    465,000    1,859,078    1,275,686    431,250(3)   13,157(4)   66,383(6)   4,110,554  

Executive Vice

  2012    900,000    1,859,431    1,354,218    294,678    25,977    172,481    4,606,785  

President and COO

  2011    204,808    9,055,361    —     569,978    2,879    229,774    10,062,800  

R. G. Young

  2012.5    383,333    1,062,338    728,964    323,438(3)   10,955(4)   `5,200(7)   2,514,228  

Senior Vice

  2012    750,000    770,340    561,031    163,710    23,538    306,431    2,575,050  

President and CFO

  2011    500,000    796,881    —     542,836    8,811    19,720    1,868,248  

D. J. Smith(1)

  2012.5    450,700    796,766    546,722    198,750(3)   225,526(4)   87,911(8)   2,306,375  

Executive Vice

  2012    901,400    796,903    580,380    173,533    1,165,873    1,897,365    5,515,454  

President, Secretary and

  2011    901,400    796,986    610,247    671,306    519,508    24,182    3,523,629  

General Counsel

  2010    901,400    761,468    570,893    803,549    694,258    16,446    3,748,014  

M. J. Jansen

  2012.5    306,668    1,084,304    400,932    180,000(3)   127,235(4)   2,262(9)   2,101,401  

Senior Vice President

        

(1)Mr. Smith retired as an executive officer and employee of the company effective December 31, 2012.
(2)The amounts shown for stock and option awards represent the aggregate grant date fair value of the awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 for fiscal years 2010, 20092012.5, 2012, 2011, and 2008,2010, respectively. We calculated these amounts in accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 718 utilizing the assumptions discussed in Note 912 to our financial statements for the fiscal yearssix-month period ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, andDecember 31, 2012, in Note 812 to our financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.2012, in Note 10 to our financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 and in Note 9 to our financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.
(2)(3)Represents cash bonusamounts paid under our annual incentive plan related to fiscal year 2010,2012.5, paid in September 2010.February, 2013.
(3)(4)Each amount shown represents the aggregate change in actuarial present value of the named executive officer’s accumulated benefit under all defined benefit and actuarial pension plans from the pension plan measurement date for plan year 2009 (JuneJune 30, 2009)2012) to the measurement date for plan year 2010 (June 30, 2010)December 31, 2012 using the same assumptions used for financial reporting purposes except that retirement age is assumed to be the normal retirement age (65) specified in the plans. No named executive officer received above market or preferential earnings on deferred compensation. To derive the change in pension value for financial reporting purposes, the assumptions used to value pension liabilities on June 30, 20092012 were interest rate of 6.25%4.0% for the ADM Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees, interest rate of 3.75% for the ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan and mortality determined under RP2000CH projected to 20162019 using Scale AA and the assumptions used to value pension liabilities on June 30, 2010December 31, 2012 were interest rate of 5.35%3.90% for the ADM Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees, interest rate of 3.60% for the ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan and mortality determined under RP2000CH projected to 20172020 using Scale AA.
(4)(5)Includes the following items for Ms. Woertz:
$12,250 in company contributions under our 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan; and
Perquisites and personal benefits whose aggregate incremental cost to us totaled $55,433, which included:
$43,751 for personal use of company-owned aircraft; and
Amounts$49,448 related to personal use of company-owned aircraft and expenses related to home security system and executive healthcare services.
(6)Includes $61,033 related to personal use of company-owned aircraft and expenses related to automobile maintenance and executive healthcare services.
(7)Includes expenses related to automobile maintenance and executive healthcare services.
(8)Includes $86,673 related to payment offor accrued but unused vacation and expenses related to personal financial planning advice, home telephone, internet service and security systems.use of company-owned automobile.


31


(5)(9)Includes the following items for Mr. Mills:
$12,250 in company contributions under our 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan; and
Perquisites and personal benefits whose aggregate incremental cost to us totaled $3,098, which included expenses related to personal financial planning adviceuse of company-owned aircraft and personal use of company-owned automobile.
(6)Includes the following items for Mr. Smith:
$12,250 in company contributions under our 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan; and
Perquisites and personal benefits whose aggregate incremental cost to us totaled $4,196, which included expenses related to personal financial planning advice, personal use of company-owned automobile, and reimbursement of expenses related to home telephone system.
(7)Includes the following items for Mr. Rice:
$12,250 in company contributions under our 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan; and
Perquisites and personal benefits whose aggregate incremental cost to us totaled $11,513, which included expenses related to personal financial planning advice, personal use of company-owned aircraft and automobile, and reimbursement of expenses related to home telephone and security systems.
(8)Includes the following for Mr. D’Ambrose:
$12,250 in company contributions under our 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan; and
Perquisites and personal benefits whose aggregate incremental cost to us totaled $4,309, which included expenses related to personal financial planning advice, personal use of company-owned aircraft and automobile, and reimbursement of expenses related to home security system.

36


Aggregate incremental cost to our company of perquisites and personal benefits is determined as follows. In the case of payment of expenses related to home phone, internet servicesecurity systems and security systems,executive healthcare services, incremental cost is determined by the amounts paid to third-party providers. In the case of personal use of company-owned aircraft, incremental cost is based solely on the cost per hour to the company to operate the aircraft, and does not include fixed costs that do not change based on usage, such as purchase costs of the aircraft and non-trip-related hangar expenses. Our direct operating cost per hour of an aircraft is based on the actual costs of fuel, on-board catering, aircraft maintenance, landing fees, trip-related hangar and parking costs, and smaller variable costs, divided by the number of hours the aircraft was operated during the year. In the case of personal use of company-owned automobiles, incremental cost is based on the direct costs to operate the vehicle, such as maintenance, fuel, registration and parking fees, and does not include fixed costs to acquire or lease the vehicle. In the case of personal financial planning advice, incremental cost is the amount paid to the service providers.

Employment Agreements

In connection with the election of Ms. Woertz as our President and Chief Executive Officer, we and Ms. Woertz entered into Terms of Employment dated as of April 27, 2006. Pursuant to the Terms of Employment, the board approved an initial annual salary for Ms. Woertz of $1,200,000 and approved a target annual bonus of at least 125% of her annual salary. Pursuant to the Terms of Employment, there shall be no reduction in Ms. Woertz’s initial $1,200,000 annual salary as a result of subsequent salary reviews. Ms. Woertz is also entitled to receive, pursuant to the Terms of Employment, other benefits and perquisites comparable to those received by her predecessor as Chief Executive Officer or, if more favorable, other ADM senior officers. Provisions of Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment relating to termination of her employment and change of controlchange-in-control of our company are described below in the “Termination of Employment andChange-in-Control Arrangements” section.


32

37


Grants of Plan-Based Awards During Fiscal 2010Year 2012.5

The following table summarizes the grants of plan-based awards made to our named executive officers during the fiscal year`six-month period ended June 30, 2010.

                               
       Estimated
                
       Future
  All Other
  All Other
          
       Payouts
  Stock
  Option
          
       Under
  Awards:
  Awards:
  Exercise
     Grant Date
 
       Equity
  Number
  Number of
  or Base
  Closing
  Fair Value
 
       Incentive
  of Shares
  Securities
  Price of
  Market
  of Stock
 
       Plan
  of Stock
  Underlying
  Option
  Price on the
  and
 
       Awards
  or Units
  Options
  Awards
  Date of
  Option
 
Name
 
Grant Type
 Grant Date  (#) (1)  (#)  (#)  ($/Sh) (2)  Grant ($)  Awards ($) (3) 
 
P. A. Woertz Restricted Stock  9/10/09       69,882               2,005,613 
  Stock Options  9/10/09           337,657   28.70   29.01   2,873,461 
  Performance Share Units  9/10/09   98,124                   1,827,069 
S. R. Mills Restricted Stock  9/10/09       9,256               265,647 
  Stock Options  9/10/09           44,723   28.70   29.01   380,593 
  Performance Share Units  9/10/09   12,997                   242,004 
D. J. Smith Restricted Stock  9/10/09       13,884               398,471 
  Stock Options  9/10/09           67,085   28.70   29.01   570,893 
  Performance Share Units  9/10/09   19,495                   362,997 
J. D. Rice Restricted Stock  9/10/09       11,107               318,771 
  Stock Options  9/10/09           53,668   28.70   29.01   456,715 
  Performance Share Units  9/10/09   15,596                   290,398 
M. D’Ambrose Restricted Stock  9/10/09       6,757               193,926 
  Stock Options  9/10/09           32,648   28.70   29.01   277,834 
  Performance Share Units  9/10/09   9,488                   176,667 
December 31, 2012.

    Grant
Date
  Estimated Future Payment
Under
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards
  Estimated
Future
Payouts
Under
Equity
Incentive
Plan

Awards
(#)(1)
  All Other
Stock
Awards:
Number of
Shares of
Stock or
Units(#)
  All Other
Option
Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Options(#)
  Exercise
or Base
Price of
Option
Awards
($/Sh)
(2)
  Closing
Market
Price on
the Date
of
Grant ($)
  Grant
Date
Fair
Value of
Stock
and
Option
Awards
($)
(3)
 

Name

   Threshold
($)
  Target
($)
  Maximum
($)
       

P. A. Woertz

    0    975,000    2,340,000        
   8/16/12        152,773       4,010,291  
   8/16/12         467,203    26.25    26.32    2,751,826  

J. Luciano

    0    500,000    1,200,000        
   8/16/12        70,822       1,859,078  
   8/16/12         216,585    26.25    26.32    1,275,686  

R. Young

    0    375,000    900,000        
   8/16/12        40,470       1,062,338  
   8/16/12         123,763    26.25    26.32    728,964  

D. J. Smith

    0    265,000    636,000        
   8/16/12        30,353       796,766  
   8/16/12         92,822    26.25    26.32    546,722  

M. J. Jansen

    0    200,000    480,000        
   8/16/12        22,259       584,299  
   8/16/12         68,070    26.25    26.32    400,932  
   9/6/12       18,776        500,005  

(1)The number of shares shown represents the maximum payout under the performance share unit awards.award.
(2)Exercise price was determined by using the closing market price of a share of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the trading day immediately prior to the grant date.
(3)The grant date fair value is generally the amount the company would expense in its financial statements over the award’s service period under FASB ASC Topic 718.

All of the awards in the table above were granted under our 20022009 Incentive Compensation Plan. The awards shown in the columns designated “Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards” were made pursuant to our annual cash incentive plan. The amounts actually paid with respect to these awards are reflected in the Summary Compensation Table in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column. See “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” for more information about our annual cash incentive plan.

All of the awards shown in the “All Other Stock Awards” column in the table above are restricted stock awards and all of these awards vest in full three years after the date of the grant. Unvested shares vest immediately upon the occurrence of a change-in-control of our company. Under the terms of the restricted stock award agreement pertaining to each of these awards, the recipient of the award may vote and receive cash dividends on restricted shares prior to their vesting date, but may not transfer or pledge the shares in any manner prior to vesting. Dividends on restricted shares are paid at the same rate as dividends to our stockholders generally. Vesting accelerates upon the death of the award recipient or a change in controlchange-in-control of our company, and continues in accordance with the original vesting schedule if employment ends as a result of disability or retirement. If employment ends for other reasons, unvested shares are forfeited. In addition,

With respect to each of the restricted stock awards described above, if an award recipient’s employment is terminated for cause, or if the recipient breaches a non-competition or confidentiality restriction or participates in an activity deemed by us to be detrimental to our company, the recipient’s unvested shares will be forfeited, and any shares that have already vested must be returned to us or the recipient must pay us the amount of the shares’ fair market value as of the date they vested.

38


All of the awards shown in the “All Other Option Awards” column in the table above are non-qualified stock option awards, vest and become exercisable in five equal annual installments commencing on the first anniversary of the grant date, and must be exercised within ten years after the grant date. The exercise price may be paid in cash or by delivering shares of our common stock that are already owned by the award recipient. Tax withholding obligations resulting from the exercise may be paid by surrendering a portion of the shares being acquired, subject to certain conditions. Under the terms of the stock option agreement pertaining to each of these awards, vesting and exercisability accelerate upon the death of the recipient or change in


33


controlchange-in-control of our company, and continue in accordance with the original vesting schedule if employment ends as a result of disability or retirement. If employment ends for other reasons, a recipient forfeits any interest in the unvested portion of any option, but retains the right to exercise the previously vested portion of any option for a period of three months. In addition, if an award recipient’s employment is terminated for cause, or if the recipient breaches a non-competition or confidentiality restriction or participates in an activity deemed by us to be detrimental to our company, the recipient’s right to exercise any unexercised options will terminate, the recipient’s right to receive option shares will terminate, and any shares already issued upon exercise of the option must be returned to us in exchange for the lesser of the shares’ then-current fair market value or the price paid for the shares, or the recipient must pay us cash in the amount of the gain realized by the recipient from the exercise of the option.

The awardsaward shown in the “Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards” column in the table above are awardsis an award of performance share units, each of which represents the contingent right to receive one share of our common stock upon vesting of the unit. Each of these awardsunits. The award vests on June 30, 2012,March 31, 2016, but only if our company’s net earnings attributable to controlling interests for the extent that our total shareholder return (“TSR”)period of January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015 exceeds the average TSRsum of four equally-weighted indices (the S&P 500 Index,our company’s dividend payments and after-tax interest expenses for such period and the S&P 500 Consumer Staples Index,Compensation/Succession Committee has not exercised its discretion to reduce the Russell 3000 Food, Beverage and Tobacco Customized Index and a peer group index) duringnumber of earned units. The Compensation/Succession Committee may reduce the three-year performance period. One-thirdnumber of earned units to zero in the event the company’s adjusted ROIC (as defined in the applicable award agreement) for each of the units will be earned if our TSR exceeds the average TSR of the indicescalendar years during the first year of the performance period two-thirds will be earned ifis not equal to or greater than our TSR exceedscompany’s weighted average cost of capital (as defined in the average TSRapplicable award agreement) and our company’s adjusted ROIC for at least one of the calendar years during the first two years of the performance period and all units will be earned ifis not equal to or greater than our TSR exceeds thecompany’s weighted average TSR over the full three-year performance period.cost of capital plus 2%. No dividend equivalents are paid on units, whichand the units may not be transferred or pledged in any manner. Vesting of units accelerates upon the death of the award recipientIf employment ends or upon a change in controlchange-in-control of our company and continues in accordance with the original vesting terms if employment ends as a result of disability or retirement. If employment ends for other reasons,occurs, unvested units are forfeited. In addition, if an award recipient’s employment is terminated for cause, or if the recipient breaches a non-competitionnoncompetition or confidentiality restriction or participates in an activity deemed by us to be detrimental to our company, the recipient’s unvested units will be forfeited and any shares that have already been issued in settlement of vested units must be returned to us or the recipient must pay us the amount of the shares’ fair market value as of the date the units vested.

The impact of a termination of employment or change in controlchange-in-control of our company on restricted stock, performance share unit and stock option awards held by our named executive officers is quantified in the “Termination of Employment andChange-in-Control Arrangements” section below.


34

39


Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2010Year 2012.5 Year-End

The following table summarizes information regarding unexercised stock options, and unvested restricted stock awards and unearned performance share units for the named executive officers as of June 30, 2010.

                                 
  Option Awards  Stock Awards 
                 Market
  Equity Incentive
  Equity Incentive
 
  Number of
  Number of
        Number of
  Value of
  Plan Awards:
  Plan Awards:
 
  Securities
  Securities
        Shares or
  Shares or
  Number of
  Market or Payout
 
  Underlying
  Underlying
        Units of
  Units of
  Unearned Shares,
  Value of Unearned
 
  Unexercised
  Unexercised
  Option
     Stock that
  Stock that
  Units or Other
  Shares, Units or
 
  Options
  Options
  Exercise
  Option
  have not
  have not
  Rights that have
  Other Rights that
 
  (#)
  (#)
  Price
  Expiration
  Vested
  Vested
  not Vested
  have not Vested
 
Name
 Exercisable  Unexercisable  ($)  Date  (#)  ($)(1)  (#)(2)  ($)(1) 
 
P. A. Woertz     337,657(3)  28.70   9-10-2019                 
   164,960   659,841(4)  26.03   8-8-2018                 
   41,467   62,202(5)  34.37   8-3-2017                 
   111,016   27,754(6)  36.34   5-1-2016   521,956(12)  13,476,904   98,124(17)  2,533,562 
S. R. Mills     44,723(3)  28.70   9-10-2019                 
   17,747   70,990(4)  26.03   8-8-2018                 
   6,738   10,108(5)  34.37   8-3-2017                 
   5,943   3,962(7)  41.81   8-10-2016                 
   21,408   5,353(9)  20.90   8-8-2015                 
   28,576      15.73   8-19-2014                 
   10,839   8,132(10)  13.65   10-14-2013                 
   10,504   5,254(11)  11.30   8-8-2012   81,491(13)  2,104,098   12,997(17)  335,583 
D. J. Smith     67,085(3)  28.70   9-10-2019                 
   21,274   85,097(4)  26.03   8-8-2018                 
   11,213   16,821(5)  34.37   8-3-2017                 
   12,123   8,082(7)  41.81   8-10-2016                 
   38,746   9,687(9)  20.90   8-8-2015                 
   52,183      15.73   8-19-2014                 
   25,404   19,059(10)  13.65   10-14-2013                 
   11,381   11,384(11)  11.30   8-8-2012   108,070(14)  2,790,367   19,495(17)  503,361 
J. D. Rice     53,668(3)  28.70   9-10-2019                 
   20,932   83,732(4)  26.03   8-8-2018                 
   9,178   13,769(5)  34.37   8-3-2017                 
   11,907   7,938(7)  41.81   8-10-2016                 
   16,790   8,395(9)  20.90   8-8-2015                 
   22,167      15.73   8-19-2014                 
   11,482   17,230(10)  13.65   10-14-2013                 
   11,376   11,384(11)  11.30   8-8-2012   103,686(15)  2,677,173   15,596(17)  402,689 
M. D’Ambrose     32,648(3)  28.70   9-10-2019                 
   16,609   66,440(4)  26.03   8-8-2018                 
   8,708   13,062(5)  34.37   8-3-2017                 
   3,997   2,665(8)  38.54   10-30-2016   80,058(16)  2,067,098   9,488(17)  244,980 
December 31, 2012.

  Option Awards  Stock Awards 

Name

 Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Exercisable
  Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Unexercisable
  Option
Exercise
Price
($)
  Option
Expiration
Date
  Number of
Shares or
Units of
Stock that
have not
Vested (#)
  Market
Value of
Shares or
Units of
Stock that
have not
Vested
($)(1)
  Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Number of
Unearned Shares,
Units or Other
Rights that have
not Vested (#)
  Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Market or Payout
Value of Unearned
Shares, Units or
Other Rights that
have not Vested
($)(1)
 

P. A. Woertz

  —     467,203(2)   26.25    8-16-2022      
  83,703    334,812(3)   26.17    8-11-2021      
  139,299    208,949(4)   30.71    8-19-2020      
  202,594    135,063(5)   28.70    9-10-2019      
  659,840    164,961(6)   26.03    8-8-2018      
  103,669    —     34.37    8-3-2017      
  138,770    —     36.34    5-1-2016    436,665(7)   11,960,254    

J. R. Luciano

  —     216,585(2)   26.25    8-16-2022      

.

  38,802    155,212(3)   26.17    8-11-2021    274,150(8)   7,508,968    124,468(13)   3,409,179  

R. Young

  —     123,763(2)   26.25    8-16-2022      
  16,075    64,302(3)   26.17    8-11-2021    93,822(9)   2,569,784    

D. J. Smith

  —     92,822(2)   26.25    8-16-2022      
  16,629    66,520(3)   26.17    8-11-2021      
  27,675    41,514(4)   30.71    8-19-2020      
  40,251    26,834(5)   28.70    9-10-2019      
  85,096    21,275(6)   26.03    8-8-2018      
  28,034    —     34.37    8-3-2017      
  20,205    —     41.81    8-10-2016      
  48,433    —     20.90    8-8-2015      
  52,183    —     15.73    8-19-2014      
  6,357    —     13.65    3-31-2013    86,756(10)   2,376,246    

M.J. Jansen

  —     68,070(2)   26.25    8-16-2022      
  5,122    20,488(3)   26.17    8-11-2021      
  5,192    7,788(4)   30.71    8-19-2020      
  4,711    3,141(5)   28.70    9-10-2019      
  21,843    5,461(6)   26.03    8-8-2018      
  9,029    —     34.37    8-3-2017      
  6,704    —      41.81    8-10-2016      
  6,140    —     20.90    8-8-2015      
  3,138    —     15.73    8-19-2014      
  8,538    —     13.65    10-14-2013    56,507(11)   1,547,726    18,776(14)   514,275  

(1)Calculated by multiplying the closing market price of a share of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2010,December 31, 2012, which was $25.82,$27.39, by the number of shares or units that have not vested.
(2)Amounts shown representStock options vest at the numberrate of unearned20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on August 16 of 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and unvested performance share units granted on September 10, 2009, all of which would vest and result in the issuance of an equal number of shares of our common stock if the specified performance conditions are satisfied over the full three-year performance period. See the table under the caption “Grants of Plan-Based Awards During Fiscal 2010.”2017.
(3)Stock options vest at the rate of 20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on August 11 of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
(4)Stock options vest at the rate of 20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on August 19, 2013, 2014 and 2015.
(5)Stock options vest at the rate of 20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on September 910 of 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
(4)(6)Stock options vest at the rate of 20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on August 8 of 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
(5)Stock options vest at the rate of 20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on August 3 of 2010, 2011 and 2012.
(6)Stock options vest at the rate of 20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting date on May 1 of 2011.


35


(7)Stock options vest at the rate of 20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on August 10 of 2010 and 2011.
(8)Stock options vest at the rate of 20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on October 30 of 2010 and 2011.
(9)Stock options vest at the rate of 20% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting date on August 8 of 2010.
(10)Stock options vest at the rate of 11.1% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on October 14 of 2010, 2011 and 2012.
(11)Stock options vest at the rate of 11.1% of the initial grant per year, with remaining vesting dates on August 8 of 2010 and 2011.
(12)Restricted share awards vest as to 266,360130,623 shares on August 3, 2010, 185,71419, 2013, 153,269 shares on August 8, 201111, 2014 and 69,882152,773 shares on September 10, 2012.August 16, 2015.
(8)Restricted share award vests as to 132,276 shares on April 12, 2014, 71,052 shares on August 11, 2014 and 70,822 shares on August 16, 2015.

40


(13)(9)Restricted share award vests as to 23,916 shares on November 1, 2013, 29,436 shares on August 11, 2014 and 40,470 shares on August 16, 2015.
(10)Restricted share awards vest as to 40,39825,952 shares on August 3, 2010, 31,83719, 2013, 30,451 shares on August 8, 201111, 2014 and 9,25630,353 shares on September 10, 2012.August 16, 2015.
(14)(11)Restricted share awards vest as to 56,02320,000 shares on February 17, 2013, 4,869 shares on August 3, 2010, 38,16319, 2013, 9,379 shares on August 8, 201111, 2014 and 13,88422,259 shares on September 10, 2012.August 16, 2015.
(15)(12)Restricted share awards vest as to 55,02815,000 shares on February 17, 2013, 2,544 shares on August 3, 2010, 37,55119, 2013, 4,873 shares on August 8, 201111, 2014 and 11,107 shares on September 10, 2012.
(16)Restricted share awards vest as to 43,50517,301 shares on August 3, 2010, 29,796 shares16, 2015.
(13)Amount shown represents the number of unvested performance share units granted on August 8, 2011 and 6,757 shares on September 10, 2012
(17)April 11, 2011. Performance share unit awards vestaward vests on June 30, 2012 toOctober 14, 2014 and will be settled in a number of shares ranging between 0% and 150% of the number of vested performance units depending on the extent theto which performance conditions have been satisfied during some or allsatisfied. Disclosure is based on an assumed share settlement equal to 100% of the three-yearnumber of units.
(14)Amount shown represents the number of unvested performance period.share units granted on September 6, 2012. Performance share unit award vests on March 31, 2016, and vested performance share units will be settled in shares depending on the extent to which performance conditions have been satisfied.

Option Exercises and Stock Vested During Fiscal 2010Year 2012.5

The following table summarizes information regarding stock options exercised by the named executive officers during the fiscal year thatsix-month period ended June 30, 2010,December 31, 2012, and restricted stock awards to the named executive officers that vested during that same fiscal year.period. No performance share unit awards vested during the fiscal yearsix-month period ended June 30, 2010.

                 
  Option Awards  Stock Awards 
  Number of
          
  Shares
  Value
  Number of
  Value
 
  Acquired
  Realized
  Shares
  Realized
 
  on
  on
  Acquired
  on
 
  Exercise
  Exercise
  Upon
  Vesting
 
Name
 (#)  ($) (1)  Vesting (#)  ($) (2) 
 
P. A. Woertz  0   0   0   0 
S. R. Mills  35,336   569,757   22,891   652,508 
D. J. Smith  24,805   368,096   43,948   1,252,738 
J. D. Rice  20,508   346,469   43,166   1,230,447 
M. D’Ambrose  0   0   6,159   186,802 
December 31, 2012.

   Option Awards   Stock Awards 

Name

  Number of
Shares
Acquired
on
Exercise
(#)
   Value
Realized
on
Exercise
($)(1)
   Number of
Shares
Acquired
Upon
Vesting (#)
   Value
Realized
on
Vesting
($)(2)
 

P. A. Woertz

   0     0     69,882     1,907,079  

J. R. Luciano

   0     0     0     0  

R. G. Young

   0     0     0     0  

D. J. Smith

   0     0     13,884     378,894  

M. J. Jansen

   5,800     93,206     1,625     44,346  

(1)Represents the difference between the market value of the shares acquired upon exercise (calculated using the average of the high and low sale prices reported on the New York Stock Exchange on the exercise date) and the aggregate exercise price of the shares acquired.
(2)Represents the market value of the shares that vested, calculated using the average of the high and low sale prices reported on the New York Stock Exchange on the vesting date.


36

41


Pension Benefits

The following table summarizes information regarding the participation of each of the named executive officers in our defined benefit retirement plans as of the pension plan measurement date for the fiscal yearsix-month period ended June 30, 2010.

               
          Payments
 
    Number
  Present
  During
 
    of Years
  Value of
  Last
 
    Credited
  Accumulated
  Fiscal
 
    Service
  Benefit
  Year
 
Name
 Plan Name (#) (1)  ($) (1)  ($) 
 
P. A. Woertz ADM Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees  4   95,985   0 
  ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan II  4   1,144,896   0 
S. R. Mills ADM Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees  31   690,624   0 
  ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan II  31   1,409,481   0 
D. J. Smith ADM Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees  29   666,253(2)  0 
  ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan II  29   2,222,884(2)  0 
J. D. Rice ADM Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees  34   780,526(3)  0 
  ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan II  34   2,508,249(3)  0 
M. D’Ambrose ADM Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees  4   64,733   0 
  ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan II  4   95,989   0 
December 31, 2012.

Name

  Plan Name  Number
of Years
Credited
Service
(#)(1)
   Present
Value of
Accumulated
Benefit
($)(2)
  Payments
During
Last
Fiscal
Period
($)
 

P. A. Woertz

  ADM Retirement Plan   7     152,087    0  
  ADM Supplemental Retirement
Plan
   7     1,853,415    0  

J. R. Luciano

�� ADM Retirement Plan   2     12,686    0  
  ADM Supplemental Retirement
Plan
   2     29,327    0  

R. G. Young

  ADM Retirement Plan   2     15,653    0  
  ADM Supplemental Retirement
Plan
   2     27,651    0  

D. J. Smith(3)

  ADM Retirement Plan   31     1,077,605(3)   0  
  ADM Supplemental Retirement
Plan
   31     3,552,195(3)   0  

M. J. Jansen

  ADM Retirement Plan   21     473,397    0  
  ADM Supplemental Retirement
Plan
   21     612,832    0  

(1)CalculatedThe number of years of credited service was calculated as of the pension plan measurement date used for financial statement reporting purposes, which was June 30, 2010. December 31, 2012.
(2)The assumptions used to value pension liabilities on such dateas of December 31, 2012 were interest of 5.35%3.90% for the ADM Retirement Plan and 3.60% for the ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan and mortality determined under RP2000CH projected to 20172020 using Scale AA. The amounts reported for Ms. Woertz, Mr. Luciano and Mr. D’AmbroseYoung are the present value of their respective projected normal retirement benefit under the Retirement and Supplemental Plans at June 30, 2010.December 31, 2012. The amounts reported are calculated by projecting the balance in the accounts forward to age 65 by applying a 4.19%2.90% interest rate and then discounting back to June 30, 2010December 31, 2012 using the assumptions specified above. The total account balance for Ms. Woertz at June 30, 2010December 31, 2012 under the Retirement and Supplemental Plans was $1,253,699$1,619,959, the total account balance for Mr. Luciano at December 31, 2012 under the Retirement and Supplemental Plans was $39,758 and the total account balance for Mr. D’AmbroseYoung at June 30, 2010December 31, 2012 under the Retirement and Supplemental Plans was $172,177,$41,308, which are the amounts that would have been distributable if such individuals had terminated employment on that date.
(2)(3)Mr. Smith retired from the company effective December 31, 2012. He is eligible for early retirementto commence his benefit under the terms of the Retirement Plan andat any time. He will begin receiving his benefit under the Supplemental Plan. If Mr. Smith had retiredPlan on June 30, 2010, theJuly 1, 2013 payable in an annuity form. The present value of his early retirement benefit under these two plans would be $3,134,163.
(3)Mr. Riceas of December 31, 2012 is eligible for early retirement under the terms of the Retirement Plan and Supplemental Plan. If Mr. Rice had retired on June 30, 2010, the present value of his early retirement benefit under these two plans would be $3,728,282.$4,959,501.

Qualified Retirement Plan

We sponsor the ADM Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees,(the “Retirement Plan”), which is a qualified defined benefit plan under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Retirement Plan covers eligible salaried employees of our company and its participating affiliates.

Effective January 1, 2009, the Retirement Plan was amended to provide benefits determined under a cash-balance formula. The cash-balance formula applies to any participant entering or re-entering the plan on or after January 1, 2009 and to any participant who had less than five years of service prior to January 1, 2009. For a participant with an accrued benefit but less than five years of service prior to January 1, 2009, an account was established on January 1, 2009 with an opening balance equal to the present value of his or her accrued benefit determined under the final average pay formula. The accrued benefits of all other participants to whom the cash-balance formula does not apply continue to be determined under the traditional final average pay formula. Ms. Woertz, Mr. Luciano and Mr. D’AmbroseYoung participate in the cash-balance formula, while the other named executive officers participate in the final average pay formula.


37

42


A participant whose accrued benefit is determined under the cash-balance formula has an individual hypothetical account established under the Retirement Plan. Pay and interest credits are made on an annual basis to the participant’s account. Pay credits are equal to a percentage of the participant’s earnings for the year based on the sum of the participant’s age and years of service at the end of the year under the following schedule.

Age + Service

  Pay 
Age + Service
Pay

Less than 40

   2.00%

at least 40 but less than 50

   2.25%

at least 50 but less than 60

   2.50%

at least 60 but less than 70

   3.00%

at least 70 but less than 80

   3.50%

80 or more

   4.00%

Interest credits are made at the end of the year and are calculated on the balance of the participant’s account as of the first day of the plan year, using an interest rate based upon the yield on30-year Treasury bonds, subject to a minimum annual interest rate of 1.95%. The participant’s pension benefit will be the amount of the balance in the participant’s account at the time that the pension becomes payable under the Retirement Plan. The pension payable to a participant whose accrued benefit under the final average pay formula was converted to the cash-balance formula at January 1, 2009, if paid in annuity form, will be increased to reflect any additional benefit which the participant would have received in that form under the traditional formula, but only with respect to the benefit accrued by the participant prior to January 1, 2009. A participant under the cash-balance formula becomes vested in a benefit under the Retirement Plan after three years of service. There are no special early retirement benefits under the cash-balance formula.

For a participant whose accrued benefit is determined under the final average pay formula, the formula calculates a life annuity payable at a normal retirement age of 65 based upon a participant’s highest average earnings over five consecutive of the last 15 years of employment. The final average pay formula provides a benefit of 36% of a participant’s final average earnings, plus 16.5% of the participant’s final average earnings in excess of Social Security “covered compensation.” This benefit accrues ratably over 30 years of service. A participant accrues an additional benefit of1/2% of final average earnings for years of service in excess of 30. Early retirement is available at age 55 with 10 years of service. The life annuity payable at early retirement is subsidized relative to the normal retirement benefit. The payment amount in life annuity form is 97% of the full benefit amount at age 64, and 50% at age 55, with adjustments between those two ages. Mr. Rice and Mr. Smith are currentlywas eligible for early retirement.retirement at the time he retired. A participant under the final average pay formula becomes vested in a benefit under the Retirement Plan after five years of service.

Earnings for purposes of the cash-balance and the final average pay formulas generally include amounts reflected as pay onForm W-2, increased by 401(k) Plan deferrals and elective “cafeteria plan” contributions, and decreased by bonuses, expense allowances/reimbursements, severance pay, income from stock option and restricted stock awards or cash payments in lieu thereof, merchandise or service discounts, amounts paid in a form other than cash, and other fringe benefits. Annual earnings are limited as required under Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code.

When a participant is eligible for a pension, the participant has a choice of a life annuity, a joint and 50% survivor annuity, a joint and 75% survivor annuity, or a joint and 100% survivor annuity. Each joint and survivor annuity form is the actuarial equivalent of the life annuity payable at the same age, with actuarial equivalence determined using the IRS prescribed mortality table under Section 417(e) of the Internal Revenue Code and an interest rate assumption of 6%. ACash-balance participants may also elect a lump-sum payment option. In addition, for a limited election period during Fiscal Year 2012.5, a lump-sum payment option iswas available only to cash-balance participants.

eligible final average pay participants who (1) terminated employment prior to August 1, 2012, (2) had not started receiving monthly payments of their pension benefits, and (3) elected in October or November 2012 to receive their Retirement Plan benefit in the form of a lump sum.

43


Supplemental Retirement Plan

We also sponsor the ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “Supplemental Plan”), which is a non-qualified deferred compensation plan under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. The Supplemental Plan covers participants in the


38


Retirement Plan whose benefit under such plan is limited by the benefit limits of Section 415 or the compensation limit of Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Supplemental Plan also covers any employee whose qualified planRetirement Plan benefit is reduced by participation in the ADM Deferred Compensation Plan. Participation by those employees who otherwise qualify for coverage is at the discretion of the board, Compensation/Succession Committee or, in the case of employees other than executive officers, the Chief Executive Officer. The Supplemental Plan provides the additional benefit that would have been provided under the Retirement Plan but for the limits of Section 415 or 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code, and but for the fact that elective contributions made by the participant under the ADM Deferred Compensation Plan are not included in the compensation base for the Retirement Plan. A participant is not vested in a benefit under the Supplemental Plan unless and until the participant is vested in a benefit under the Retirement Plan, which requires three years of service for a cash-balance formula participant and five years of service for a final average pay formula participant, for vesting. A separate payment form election will be allowed with respect to the Supplemental Plan benefit from among the same options available under the Retirement Plan.Plan, subject to the limitations of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Except as noted below for Ms. Woertz, it generally has not been our practice to grant additional service credit under the Supplemental Plan beyond what is earned under the Retirement Plan.

Ms. Woertz entered the Supplemental Plan when she satisfied the one year of service requirement for entry into the Retirement Plan on May 1, 2007. Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment provide that, once a participant, her Supplemental Plan benefit will be fully-vested, will be calculated after including bonuses in the compensation base, and will be payable in a lump sum six months following her separation from service. The severance provisions of such Terms of Employment also provide for the additional benefit that would derive from two years of pension coverage (or three years of pension coverage in the event of a termination within two years following a change in control)change-in-control).

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

The following table summarizes information with respect to the participation of the named executive officers in ourthe ADM Deferred Compensation Plan for Selected Management Employees I and II, which are non-qualified deferred compensation plans, for the fiscal yearsix-month period ended June 30, 2010.

             
     Aggregate
  Aggregate
 
  Executive
  Earnings
  Balance
 
  Contributions
  in Last
  at Last
 
  in Last FY
  FY
  FYE
 
Name
 ($)(1)  ($)(2)  ($)(3) 
 
P. A. Woertz  32,500   14,583   173,346 
S. R. Mills  0   0   0 
D. J. Smith  0   0   0 
J. D. Rice  0   139,341   1,163,006 
M. D’Ambrose  0   0   0 
December 31, 2012.

Name

  Executive
Contributions
in FY 2012.5
($)
   Aggregate
Earnings
in
FY 2012.5
($)(1)
   Aggregate
Balance
at 12/31/12
($)(2)
 

P. A. Woertz

   0     20,636     238,701  

J. R. Luciano

   0     0     0  

R. G. Young

   0     0     0  

D. J. Smith

   0     0     0  

M. J. Jansen

   0     25,327     458,930  

(1)The amounts reported in this column are reported in the Summary Compensation Table on page 31 as part of each individual’s compensation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.
(2)The amounts reported in this column were not reported in the Summary Compensation Table as part of each individual’s compensation for the most recent fiscal yearsix-month period ended December 31, 2012 because none of the earnings is considered to be “above market.”
(3)(2)Of the amounts shown in this column, the following amounts were previously reported as compensation to the respective individuals in the Summary Compensation Table in previous years:

Name

Amount Reported as
Compensation in Previous Years
($)

P. A. Woertz

   190,563  
Amount Reported as
Compensation in Previous Years
Name
($)
P.A. Woertz

M. J. Jansen

   158,063
J. D. Rice879,5740  

44


We sponsor two nonqualified deferred compensation plans — the ADM Deferred Compensation Plan for Selected Management Employees I and II (referred to as “Deferred Comp Plan I” and “Deferred Comp Plan


39


II”). Deferred Comp Plan I was frozen as to new participants and new deferrals effective January 1, 2005, and is maintained as a separate “grandfathered” plan under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Deferred Comp Plan II is structured to comply with Section 409A. Deferred Comp Plan II covers salaried employees of our company and its affiliates whose annualized base salary is $175,000 or more. Participation by those employees who otherwise qualify for coverage is at the discretion of the board, Compensation/Succession Committee or, in the case of employees other than executive officers, the Chief Executive Officer.

A participant in Deferred Comp Plan II can defer up to 75% of his or her base salary and up to 100% of his or her bonus. Earnings credits are added based upon hypothetical investment elections made by participants. A participant can establish up to five “scheduled distribution accounts” that are payable upon dates specified by the participant, generally in a lump sum, but with one such account eligible for installment payout over a period of two to five years. Withdrawals are allowed upon a showing of “hardship” by the participant in accordance with Section 409A. A participant also can establish a “retirement account” to be paid six months following separation from service. Payment following separation from service is in a lump sum, except that a participant can elect upon initial deferral into the account to have installments paid over a period of two to twenty years if separation from service occurs after retirement eligibility.eligibility or due to disability. Small account balances of $10,000 or less are paid in a lump sum only. Deferred Comp Plan II provides for “make-whole” company matching credits to the extent that a participant’s election to defer under the Deferred Comp Plan II causes a loss of company matching contributions under the 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan. No “make-whole” company matching credits were made on behalf of the named executive officers for fiscal year 2010.

Fiscal Year 2012.5.

A participant with an account balance remaining under Deferred Comp Plan I continues to receive earnings credits on such account based upon hypothetical investment elections made by the participant. A participant can establish up to two “scheduled distribution accounts” that are payable upon dates specified by the participant in either a lump sum or installments over a period of two to four years. A participant also can take unscheduled withdrawals of up to 25% of the balance of his or her accounts, subject to a withdrawal penalty of 10% of the withdrawn amount. Only one such unscheduled withdrawal is allowed in any year. Withdrawals also are allowed upon a showing of “hardship” by the participant. A participant’s account under Deferred Comp Plan I is paid following termination of employment. Payment following termination of employment is in a lump sum, except that a participant can elect to have installments paid over a period of two to twenty years if termination of employment occurs after retirement eligibility.

eligibility or due to disability.

Deferred Comp Plan I and II balances are fully-vested. Unpaid amounts at death are paid to designated beneficiaries.

The hypothetical investment options available under Deferred Comp Plans I and II are determined by us and correspond with the investment options (other than our company’s common stock) that are made available to participants in the qualified 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan. These investment options consist of shares in the publicly-traded, open-end mutual funds listed below, and the plan earnings credited to each participant’s account in these plans correspond to the earnings performance of the mutual funds selected. Participants in the Deferred Comp Plans I and II may reallocate the amount of new deferrals and existing account balances among these investment options at any time. We do not set assets aside for the benefit of plan participants, but we do maintain investments separatelythe Deferred Comp Plans I and II provide for full funding of all benefits upon a change-in-control or potential change-in-control, as defined in a company account to hedge the liabilities created by the plans.


40

45


In fiscal 2010,Fiscal Year 2012.5, the investment options available under Deferred Comp Plans I and II and their respective notional rates of return were as follows:

Deemed Investment Option

Fiscal Year 2012.5 Cumulative Return
(7/1/12 to 12/31/12)

Galliard Stable Value Fund

   1.11% 
Fiscal 2010 Annualized Rate of Return
Deemed Investment Option
(7/1/09 to 6/30/10)
Galliard Stable Value Fund

BlackRock International — Instl Class

   2.9210.72%
PIMCO Total Return Fund

Dodge & Cox Stock

   13.3111.11%
Vanguard Wellington Fund

Ironbridge Small Cap

   12.504.94%
Dodge & Cox Stock Fund

PIMCO Total Return — Institutional Class

   15.344.36%
Vanguard Institutional Index Fund14.45%
Vanguard Morgan Growth Fund15.34%

T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Growth Fund

   24.225.69%
Frontegra IronBridge Small-Cap Fund

Vanguard Institutional Index — Instl Plus Shares

   16.725.95%
BlackRock International Value Fund

Vauguard LifeStrategy Conservative Growth

   2.034.47%

Vanguard LifeStrategy Income FundGrowth

   11.237.24%

Vanguard LifeStrategy Conservative Growth FundIncome

   12.413.00%

Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund

   13.455.82%

Vanguard LifeStrategyMorgan Growth Fund— Admiral Shares

   14.224.64%

Vanguard Target Retirement IncomeWellington — Admiral Shares

   10.985.75%

Vanguard Target Retirement 2010Income

   12.833.80%

Vanguard Target Retirement 20152010

   13.264.79%

Vanguard Target Retirement 20202015

   13.585.52%

Vanguard Target Retirement 20252020

   13.956.11%

Vanguard Target Retirement 20302025

   14.116.58%

Vanguard Target Retirement 20352030

   14.137.15%

Vanguard Target Retirement 20402035

   14.157.65%

Vanguard Target Retirement 20452040

   14.147.90%

Vanguard Target Retirement 20502045

   14.117.84%

Vanguard Target Retirement 2050

7.89

Vanguard Target Retirement 2055

7.90

Termination of Employment andChange-in-Control Arrangements

We have entered into certain agreements and maintain certain plans that will require us to provide compensation to named executive officers of our company in the event of a termination of employment or a change in controlchange-in-control of our company. See the tabular disclosure and narrative description under the Pension Benefits and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation sections above for detail regarding payments that would result from a termination of employment or change in controlchange-in-control of our company under our pension and nonqualified deferred compensation plans. The individual agreementagreements we have with Ms. Woertz and Mr. Smith related to termination of employment and change in controlor change-in-control of our company isare discussed below.

Under the terms of theour time-vested restricted stock award agreements pertaining to thegoverning awards held by our named executive officers, vesting accelerates upon the death of the award recipient or a change in controlchange-in-control of our company, and continues in accordance with the original vesting schedule if employment ends as a result of disability or retirement. If employment ends for other reasons, unvested shares are forfeited. In addition, if an award recipient’s employment is terminated for cause, or if the recipient breaches a non-competition or confidentiality restriction or participates in an activity deemed by us to be detrimental to our company, the recipient’s unvested shares will be forfeited, and any shares that have already vested must be returned to us or the recipient must pay us the amount of the shares’ fair market value as of the date they vested.

Under the terms of the stock option agreements pertaining to thegoverning awards held by our named executive officers, vesting and exercisability accelerate upon the death of the recipient or change in controlchange-in-control of our company, and continue in accordance with the original vesting schedule if employment ends as a result of disability or retirement. If employment ends for reasons other reasons,than death, disability, retirement or cause, a recipient forfeits

46


any interest in the unvested portion of any option, but


41


retains the right to exercise the previously vested portion of any option for a period of three months. In addition, if an award recipient’s employment is terminated for cause, or if the recipient breaches a non-competition or confidentiality restriction or participates in an activity deemed by us to be detrimental to our company, the recipient’s right to exercise any unexercised options will terminate, the recipient’s right to receive option shares will terminate, and any shares already issued upon exercise of the option must be returned to us in exchange for the lesser of the shares’ then-current fair market value or the price paid for the shares, or the recipient must pay us cash in the amount of the gain realized by the recipient from the exercise of the option.

Under the terms of thea performance share unit award agreements pertainingagreement governing an award made in 2011 to the awards held by named executive officers,Mr. Luciano, vesting accelerates upon the death of the award recipient or a change in controlchange-in-control of our company and continues in accordance with the original vesting schedule (with the number of shares to be issued in settlement subject to the satisfaction of the specified performance condition) if employment ends as a result of disability or retirement. If employment ends for other reasons, unvested units are forfeited. In addition, if an award recipient’s employment is terminated for cause, or if the recipient breaches a non-competition or confidentiality restriction or participates in an activity deemed by us to be detrimental to our company, the recipient’s right to receive an award of units or an issuance of shares in settlement of units immediately terminates, unvested units will be forfeited, and if shares have been issued or the cash value thereof paid after vesting, then any shares that have been issued must be returned to us or the recipient must pay us the amount of the shares’ fair market value as of the date they vested.

Under the terms of a performance share unit award agreement governing an award made in 2012 to Mr. Jansen, unvested units are forfeited in the event employment ends or a change-in-control of our company occurs. In addition, if an award recipient’s employment is terminated for cause, or if the recipient breaches a non-competition or confidentiality restriction or participates in an activity deemed by us to be detrimental to our company, the recipient’s right to receive an award of units or an issuance of shares in settlement of units immediately terminates, unvested units will be forfeited, and if shares have been issued or the cash value thereof paid after vesting, then any shares that have been issued must be returned to us or the recipient must pay us the amount of the shares’ fair market value as of the date they vested.

The amount of compensation payable to each named executive officer in various termination and change in controlchange-in-control scenarios is listed in the tables below. TheUnless otherwise indicated, the amounts listed are calculated based on the assumption that the named executive officer’s employment was terminated or that a change in controlchange-in-control occurred on June 30, 2010.

December 31, 2012.

47


P. A. Woertz

The following table lists the potential payments and benefits upon termination of employment or change in controlchange-in-control of our company for Ms. Woertz, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. We entered into Terms of Employment with Ms. Woertz when she joined our company. The payments and benefits provided in the Terms of Employment are described in detail below the table.

                         
  Involuntary
  Voluntary
             
  Termination
  Termination
             
  without Cause
  without Good
             
  or Voluntary
  Reason or
     Termination
       
  Termination
  Involuntary
     Related to a
       
  for Good
  Termination
  Change in
  Change in
       
Benefits and Payments
 Reason
  with Cause
  Control
  Control
  Disability
  Death
 
upon Termination
 ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($) 
 
Salary  2,600,000(1)  0   0   3,900,000(7)  0   0 
Bonus  3,900,000(2)  0   0   5,850,000(8)  0   0 
Health benefits  13,174(3)  0   0   20,386(9)  0   0 
Vesting of nonvested stock options  0(4)  0   0(6)  0(10)  (12)  0(6)
Vesting of nonvested restricted stock awards  11,672,551(4)  0   13,476,904(6)  13,476,904(10)  (12)  13,476,904(6)
Vesting of nonvested performance share unit awards  0(4)  0   2,533,562(6)  2,533,562(10)  (12)  2,533,562(6)
Severance  180,459(5)  0   0   263,874(11)  0   0 
Gross-up for excise tax
  0   0   0   4,832,171   0   0 

Benefits and Payments

upon Termination

  Involuntary
Termination
without Cause
or Voluntary
Termination
for Good
Reason
($)
  Voluntary
Termination
without Good
Reason or
Involuntary
Termination
with Cause
($)
   Change in
Control
($)
  Involuntary
Termination
without Cause
or Voluntary
Termination for
Good  Reason
Related to a
Change in
Control
($)
  Disability
($)
  Death
($)
 

Salary

   2,600,000(1)   0     0    3,900,000(7)   0    0  

Bonus

   3,900,000(2)   0     0    5,850,000(8)   0    0  

Health benefits

   18,285(3)   0     0    28,446(9)   0    0  

Vesting of nonvested stock options

   641,627(4)   0     1,165,429(6)   1,165,429(10)       (13)   1,165,429(6) 

Vesting of nonvested restricted stock awards

   7,775,802(4)   0     11,960,254(6)   11,960,254(10)       (13)   11,960,254(6) 

Severance

   184,954(5)   0     0    287,253(11)   0    0  

Gross-up for excise tax

   0    0     0    0(12)   0    0  

(1)Represents two years’ base salary granted pursuant to Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment.
(2)Represents two years’ target annual bonus amount granted pursuant to Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment.
(3)Represents the discounted present value of two years of extended health coverage granted pursuant to Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment, using a discount rate of 5.35%3.60%.


42


(4)Represents the value of two years of accelerated vesting of stock options and restricted stock and performance share units pursuant to Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment. The amount shown with respect to stock options was calculated by multiplying the number of shares as to which accelerated vesting occurs with respect to optionseach option that werewas “in the money” as of June 30, 2010December 31, 2012 by the difference between $27.39, the fair market valueclosing sale price of a share of our common stock on June 30, 2010the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) on December 31, 2012, and the exercise price of the applicable stock option. There were no options that were in the money on June 30, 2010. The amount shown with respect to restricted stock was calculated by multiplying the number of shares as to which accelerated vesting occurs by $27.39, the fair market valueclosing sale price of a share of our common stock on June 30, 2010. The amount shown with respect to performance share unit awards was calculated by multiplying the number of units that are considered to have been “earned” and as to which accelerated vesting would occur by the fair market value of a share of our common stockNYSE on June 30, 2010. There were no performance share unit awards that were considered to have been earned as of June 30, 2010.December 31, 2012.
(5)Severance payment granted pursuant to Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment. Represents two years’years of pay credits under the cash balance formula for both the Retirement and Supplemental Plans, with pay credits determined considering both base pay and target bonus. The Supplemental Plan calculates a benefit payable six months following separation from service and, accordingly, this balance is discounted to a present value using a discount rate of 5.35%3.60%.
(6)Pursuant to the terms of the stock option and restricted stock and performance share unit award agreements under the 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan and the 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan, vesting and exercisability of allthese equity awards are accelerated in full upon a change in controlchange-in-control or death. The amount shown with respect to stock options was calculated with respect to options that were “in the money” as of June 30, 2010December 31, 2012 and was determined by multiplying the number of shares subject to those optionseach option as to which accelerated vesting occurs by the difference between $27.39, the fair market valueclosing sale price of a share of our common stock on June 30, 2010the NYSE on December 31, 2012, and the exercise price of the applicable stock option. There were no options that were in the money on June 30, 2010. The amount shown with respect to restricted stock and performance share units was calculated by multiplying the number of shares or units as to which accelerated vesting occurs by $27.39, the fair market valueclosing sale price of a share of our common stock on June 30, 2010. All performance share unit awards are assumed to have been earned in full for purposes of this column.on the NYSE on December 31, 2012.
(7)Represents three years’ base salary granted pursuant to Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment.
(8)Represents three years’ target annual bonus amount granted pursuant to Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment.
(9)Represents discounted present value of three years of extended health coverage granted pursuant to Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment, using a discount rate of 5.35%3.60%.
(10)See note (6) to this table for effect of change in controla change-in-control on equity awards pursuant to the terms of the award agreements. In addition, Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment provide that vesting and exercisability of all equity awards are accelerated in full upon aan involuntary termination of employment relatedwithout cause or a voluntary termination of employment for good reason which, in either case, occurs prior to and in connection with a change in control.change-in-control or within two years after a change-in-control.
(11)Severance payment granted pursuant to Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment. Represents three years’ of pay credits under the cash balance formula calculated in the same manner as described in note (5) to this table.

48


(12)No payment would be treated as an excess parachute if termination had occurred on December 31, 2012.
(13)Pursuant to the terms of the stock option and restricted stock and performance share unit award agreements under the 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan and the 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan, vesting of allthese equity awards continues after termination of employment.

Upon an involuntary termination of Ms. Woertz’s employment by the board without cause or the voluntary termination by Ms. Woertz of her employment for good reason in circumstances that are unrelated to a change in controlchange-in-control of our company, Ms. Woertz shall receive payments equal to two years’ base salary plus target annual bonus paid in equal installments on the regular payroll schedule, two years of continuation coverage under the company’s benefit plans, two years of accelerated vesting of equity awards, and two years’ credit with respect to age, service and covered compensation for purposes of calculating pension benefits.


43


Ms. Woertz’s Terms of Employment generally provide that a termination is for “cause” if it is as a result of her indictment for or conviction of a felony or any crime involving dishonesty, fraud, theft or financial impropriety, or a determination by the board that she has (i) willfully and continuously failed to substantially perform her duties, (ii) engaged in a material act of dishonesty or gross misconduct in employment that is injurious to the company, or (iii) willfully violated a material requirement of the company’s code of conduct or her fiduciary duty to the company. The Terms of Employment also generally provide that a termination by Ms. Woertz is for “good reason” if it results from (i) an adverse change in her status or positions as President and CEO of the company, or removal from such positions, (ii) any reduction in her base salary or target bonus, (iii) requiring her to relocate to a place of employment more than 50 miles from the company’s headquarters, (iv) the failure to re-elect her as a director or her removal as a director, or (v) the company’s failure to obtain agreement from any successor to the company’s business to assume and perform the Terms of Agreement.

Upon an involuntary termination of Ms. Woertz’s employment by the board of directors without cause or the voluntary termination by Ms. Woertz of her employment for good reason that occurs prior to and in connection with, or within two years following, a change in controlchange-in-control of our company, Ms. Woertz shall receive a lump-sum payment equal to three years’ base salary plus target annual bonus, accelerated vesting of all outstanding equity awards, three years of continuation coverage under our benefit plans, three years’ credit with respect to age, service and covered compensation for purposes of calculating pension benefits,gross-up for any excise tax payable under Internal Revenue Code Section 280G, and other terms and provisions to be developed with the board. A “change in control”“change-in-control” would generally include for these purposes (i) a person or group acquiring 30% or more of our voting securities, (ii) approval by our stockholders of the dissolution or liquidation of the company or the sale of all or substantially all of its assets, (iii) the consummation of certain mergers or other business combinations, (iv) a majority of our directors are replaced under certain circumstances, or (v) the board determines that a person or group has acquired effective control of the company’s business and affairs.

As a condition to receiving severance payments and benefits, Ms. Woertz agreed in the Terms of Employment to release us from all claims and to abide by reasonable post-employment restrictive covenants, such as non-competition with principal competitors, non-solicitation of employees, customers and suppliers, and non-disparagement of our company and board of directors, for two years following termination of employment.


44

49


S.J. R. Mills, D. J. Smith, J.D. Rice,Luciano, R. G. Young, and M. D’AmbroseJ. Jansen

The following table lists the potential payments and benefits upon termination of employment or change in controlchange-in-control of our company for our current named executive officers other(other than P. A. WoertzWoertz) whose service as an executive officer did not end during Fiscal Year 2012.5. These payments and benefits are provided under the terms of agreements involving stock option and restricted stockequity compensation awards.

                               
       Involuntary
                
  Benefits and
    Termination
                
  Payments
 Voluntary
  without
  Termination
  Change in
          
  upon
 Termination
  Cause
  for Cause
  Control
  Disability
  Death
  Retirement
 
Name
 Termination ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($) 
 
S. R. Mills Vesting of nonvested stock options  0   0   0   137,140(1)  (2)  137,140(1)  0(3)
  Vesting of nonvested restricted stock awards  0   0   0   2,104,098(1)  (2)  2,104,098(1)  0(3)
  Vesting on nonvested performance share unit awards  0   0   0   335,583(1)  (2)  335,583(1)  0(3)
D. J. Smith(4) Vesting of nonvested stock options  0   0   0   314,639(1)  (2)  314,639(1)  (2)
  Vesting of nonvested restricted stock awards  0   0   0   2,790,367(1)  (2)  2,790,367(1)  (2)
  Vesting of nonvested performance share unit awards  0   0   0   503,361(1)  (2)  503,361(1)  (2)
J. D. Rice(4) Vesting of nonvested stock options  0   0   0   292,381(1)  (2)  292,381(1)  (2)
  Vesting of nonvested restricted stock awards  0   0   0   2,677,173(1)  (2)  2,677,173(1)  (2)
  Vesting of nonvested performance share unit awards  0   0   0   402,689(1)  (2)  402,689(1)  (2)
M. D’Ambrose Vesting of nonvested stock options  0   0   0   0(1)  (2)  0(1)  0(3)
  Vesting of nonvested restricted stock awards  0   0   0   2,067,098(1)  (2)  2,067,098(1)  0(3)
  Vesting of nonvested performance share unit awards  0   0   0   244,980(1)  (2)  244,980(1)  0(3)

Name

 

Benefits and
Payments
upon
Termination

 Voluntary
Termination
($)
  Involuntary
Termination
without
Cause
($)
  Termination
for Cause
($)
  Change
in
Control
($)
  Disability
($)
  Death
($)
  Retirement
($)
 

J. R. Luciano

 Vesting of nonvested stock options  0    0    0    436,266(1)  (4)  436,266(1)  (6)
 Vesting of nonvested restricted stock awards  0    0    0    7,508,969(1)  (4)  7,508,969(1)  (6)
 Vesting of nonvested performance share unit awards  0    0    0    3,409,179(2)  (5)  3,409,179(2)  (6)

R. G. Young

 Vesting of nonvested stock options  0    0    0    219,538(1)  (4)  219,538(1)  (6)
 Vesting of nonvested restricted stock awards  0    0    0    2,569,785(1)  (4)  2,569,785(1)  (6)

M. J. Jansen

 Vesting of nonvested stock options  0    0    0    110,022(1)  (4)  110,022(1)  (6)
 Vesting of nonvested restricted stock awards  0    0    0    1,547,727(1)  (4)  1,547,727(1)  (6)
 Vesting of nonvested performance share unit awards  0    0    0    0(3)  (3)  0(3)  (6)

(1)Pursuant to the terms of the stock option and restricted stock and performance share unit award agreements under the 1996 Incentive Compensation Plan, 1999 Incentive Compensation Plan, 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan and 20022009 Incentive Compensation Plan, vesting and exercisability of allthese equity awards are accelerated in full upon a change in controlchange-in-control or death. The amount shown with respect to stock options was calculated with respect to options that were “in the money” as of June 30, 2010December 31, 2012 and was determined by multiplying the number of shares subject to those optionseach option as to which accelerated vesting occurs by the difference between $27.39, the fair market valueclosing sale price of a share of our common stock on June 30, 2010the NYSE on December 31, 2012, and the exercise price of the applicable stock option. The amount shown with respect to restricted stock and performance share units was calculated by multiplying the number of shares or units as to which accelerated vesting occurs by $27.39, the fair market valueclosing sale price of a share of our common stock on June 30, 2010. Allthe NYSE on December 31, 2012.
(2)Pursuant to the terms of a 2011 performance share unit awards are assumed to have been earnedaward agreement under the 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan, vesting of the performance share units is accelerated in full upon a change-in-control or death. The number of shares issued in settlement of such vested units is determined by multiplying the number of vested units by the average company performance factor for purposesthe performance periods completed prior to the vesting date. The amount shown was calculated by multiplying the total number of this column.shares (124,468) by $27.39, the closing sale price of a share of our common stock on the NYSE on December 31, 2012.
(3)Pursuant to the terms of a 2012 performance share unit award agreement under the 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan, the performance share units are forfeited upon a termination for any reason or change-in-control prior to the vesting date.
(2)(4)Pursuant to the terms of the stock option and restricted stock and performance share unit award agreements under the 1996 Incentive Compensation Plan, 1999 Incentive Compensation Plan, 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan and 20022009 Incentive Compensation Plan, vesting of allthese equity awards generally continues on the same schedule after retirement or termination of employment.employment due to disability.


45


(5)Pursuant to the terms of this 2011 performance unit award agreement, vesting of this award generally continues on the same schedule after retirement or termination of employment due to disability, and the number of shares issuable in settlement of the vested units will be a function of the company’s performance for the relevant performance periods.
(3)(6)Because this named executive officer is not yet eligible for retirement under the terms of the ADM Retirement Plan, for Salaried Employees, no current termination of employment would be considered “retirement” under any of the applicable equity-based compensation plans.

D.J. Smith

In connection with Mr. Smith’s decision to retire, the company and Mr. Smith entered into a separation agreement on May 3, 2012 that governs the terms of his ceasing to be an active employee and an officer of the company. Pursuant to the separation agreement, Mr. Smith’s retirement was effective December 31, 2012, and in connection therewith: (i) Mr. Smith received $1,802,800 in cash, one half of which was paid shortly after the separation agreement was signed and the other half was paid shortly after December 31, 2012; (ii) Mr. Smith received shortly after December 31, 2012 a cash payment equal to the value of his accrued but unused vacation;

50


(iii) the company transferred to Mr. Smith on or about December 31, 2012, the company-owned car used by him and certain communications equipment used by him; and (iv) Mr. Smith’s healthcare coverage was extended until December 31, 2013 on the same terms as would have been available to him had he remained employed by the company through such date. The separation agreement also provides that except for payments and benefits under specified benefit plans and previously granted equity award agreements, Mr. Smith will not be entitled to payments or benefits beyond those specified in the separation agreement. Under the separation agreement, Mr. Smith is subject to non-compete and non-solicitation obligations for one year after his employment ends, and agrees to release of any claims he may have against the company.

The following table lists the payments and benefits provided and to be provided to Mr. Smith in connection with his retirement from the company. These payments and benefits are provided under the terms of the separation agreement described above.

Payment or Benefit

D.J. Smith 
(4)

Separation payments(1)

1,802,800

Payment for accrued vacation(2)

86,673

Health benefits(1)(3)

7,286

Company auto and communications equipment(1)(4)

67,746

(1)Amount is included in the amount of “All Other Compensation” disclosed for Mr. Smith and Mr. Rice are eligible for early retirement under the Retirement Plan. The subsidized early retirement benefit that is availableFiscal Year 2012 in the event of retirementSummary Compensation Table herein.
(2)Amount is describedincluded in the footnotesamount of “All Other Compensation” disclosed for Mr. Smith for Fiscal Year 2012.5 in the Summary Compensation Table herein.
(3)Amount represents the discounted present value of one year of post-retirement extended health coverage.
(4)Amount represents the estimated fair market value of Mr. Smith’s company car and certain communications equipment which was transferred to the table under the caption “Pension Benefits”.him upon his retirement.

Director Compensation for Fiscal 2010Year 2012.5

Our standard compensation for non-employee directors consists of an annual retainer of $250,000, one-half of which must be paid in stock units pursuant to our Stock Unit Plan for Non-Employee Directors. The other half of the annual retainer may be paid in cash, stock units, or a combination of both, at the election of each non-employee director. Each stock unit is deemed for valuation and bookkeeping purposes to be the equivalent of a share of our common stock. In addition to the annual retainer, our Lead Director receives a stipend in the amount of $25,000, the chairpersonchairman of the Audit Committee receives a stipend in the amount of $15,000, the chairpersonchairman of the Compensation/Succession Committee receives a stipend in the amount of $12,500, and the chairpersonchairman of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee receives a stipend in the amount of $10,000.$10,000 and each member of the Transaction Committee receives a fee of $1,000 per meeting of such committee attended. All such stipends are paid in cash. WeExcept with respect to the Transaction Committee, we do not pay fees for attendance at board and committee meetings. Directors are reimbursed forout-of-pocket traveling expenses incurred in attending board and committee meetings. Directors may also be provided with certain perquisites fromtime-to-time.

During fiscal 2009, the company adopted guidelines regarding ownership of shares of our common stock by our non-employee directors. These guidelines call for non-employee directors to own shares of common stock (including stock units issued pursuant to the Stock Unit Plan for Non-Employee Directors) over time with a fair market value of not less than three times the amount of the maximum cash portion of the annual retainer. Application of these guidelines will consider the time each director has served on the board of directors, as well as stock price fluctuations that may impact the achievement of the three times cash retainer ownership guidelines.

Stock units are credited to the account of each non-employee director on a quarterly basis in an amount determined by dividing the quarterly amount of the retainer to be paid in stock units by the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the last business day of that quarter, and are fully-vested at all times. As of any date on which cash dividends are paid on our common stock, each director’s stock unit account is also credited with stock units in an amount determined by dividing the dollar value of the dividends that would have been paid on the stock units in that director’s account had those units been actual shares by the fair market value of a share of our stock on the dividend payment date. For purposes of this plan, the “fair market value” of a share of our common stock on any date is the average of the high and low reported sales prices for our stock on the New York Stock Exchange on that date. Each stock unit is paid out in cash on the first business day following the earlier of (i) five years after the end of the calendar year that includes the quarter for which that stock unit was credited to the director’s account, and (ii) when the director ceases to be a member of our board. The amount to be paid will equal the number of stock units credited to a director’s account multiplied by the fair market value of a share of our stock on the payout date. A director may elect to defer the receipt of these payments in accordance with the plan.


46

51


The following table summarizes compensation provided to each non-employee director for services provided during fiscal 2010.
                 
  Fees Earned or
      
  Paid in
 Stock
 All Other
  
  Cash
 Awards
 Compensation
 Total
Name
 ($)(1) ($)(2) ($) ($)
 
G. W. Buckley  62,500   187,500   0   250,000 
M. H. Carter  10,000   250,000   0   260,000 
P. Dufour  19,231   0   0   19,231 
D. E. Felsinger  0   163,723   0   163,723 
V. F. Haynes  125,000   125,000   0   250,000 
A. Maciel  125,000   125,000   0   250,000 
P. J. Moore  150,000   125,000   0   275,000 
T. F. O’Neill  140,000   125,000   0   265,000 
K. R. Westbrook  137,500   125,000   0   262,500 
the six-month period ended December 31, 2012.

Name

  Fees Earned or
Paid in
Cash
($)(1)
   Stock
Awards
($)(2)
   All Other
Compensation
($)
   Total
($)
 

A. Boeckmann

   0     125,000     0     125,000  

G. W. Buckley

   0     125,000     0     125,000  

M. H. Carter

   12,500     125,000     0     137,500  

T. K. Crews

   62,500     62,500     0     125,000  

P. Dufour

   62,500     62,500     0     125,000  

D. E. Felsinger

   0     125,000     0     125,000  

A. Maciel

   67,500     62,500     0     130,000  

P. J. Moore

   62,500     62,500     0     125,000  

T. F. O’Neill

   70,000     62,500     0     132,500  

D. Shih(3)

   20,720     —       0     20,720  

K. R. Westbrook

   68,750     62,500     0     131,250  

(1)As described above, one-half of the annual retainer of $250,000 is paid in stock units, which are reported in the “Stock Awards” column. In addition, the directors may elect to receive the other half of the annual retainer in the form of cash, stock units or a combination of both. For fiscal 2010,Fiscal Year 2012.5, Mr. Boeckmann, Dr. Buckley, elected to receive 75% of his annual retainer in the form of stock units and Ms. Carter and Mr. Felsinger each elected to receive theirhis or her entire annual retainer in the form of stock units.
(2)The amounts set forth in this column represent the grant date fair value of stock unit grants to each of the listed directors computed in accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 718. Each of the listed directors is a nonemployee director and the fair value of services provided by each director has been used to calculate the number of stock units credited to each director by dividing the quarterly fair value of the services provided by the fair market value of a share of our company’s common stock on the last business day of the quarter. For purposes of this plan, the “fair market value” of a share of our common stock on any date is the average of the high and low reported sales prices for our stock on the New York Stock Exchange on that date. The fair value of services provided by each of the directors has been determined to be $62,500 per quarter. The aggregate number of stock units credited to the account of each non-employee director as of June 30, 2010December 31, 2012 (including mandatory stock unit grants, voluntary elections to receive stock units and the deemed reinvestment of dividends) was as follows:

Name

Number of Stock
Units at 12/31/12

A. Boeckmann

   5,766  
Number of Stock
Name
Units at 6/30/10

G. W. Buckley

   15,77530,895  

M. H. Carter

   106,076115,770 ��
P. Dufour

T. Crews

   7436,301  
D. E. Felsinger

P. Dufour

   5,54710,496  
V. F. Haynes

D. E. Felsinger

   9,51527,834  

A. Maciel

   14,68926,509  

P. J. Moore

   41,80148,701  

T. F. O’Neill

   20,31332,451  
K. R. Westbrook

D. Shih

   38,7300

K. R. Westbrook

51,913  


47

(3)Mr. Shih was elected at our annual meeting of stockholders held in November 2012.

Director Stock Ownership Guidelines

Our company has guidelines regarding ownership of shares of our common stock by our non-employee directors. These guidelines call for non-employee directors to own shares of common stock (including stock units issued pursuant to the Stock Unit Plan for Non-Employee Directors) over time with a fair market value of not less than three times the amount of the maximum cash portion of the annual retainer. Application of these guidelines will consider the time each director has served on our board of directors, as well as stock price fluctuations that may impact the achievement of the three times cash retainer ownership guidelines.

52


Equity Compensation Plan Information
             
        Number of Securities
 
  Number of Securities
     Remaining Available for
 
  to be Issued Upon
  Weighted-Average
  Future Issuance Under
 
  Exercise of
  Exercise Price of
  Equity Compensation
 
  Outstanding Options,
  Outstanding Options,
  Plans (Excluding
 
  Warrants and
  Warrants and
  Securities Reflected in
 
Plan Category
 Rights(a)  Rights(b)  Column (a))(c) 
 
Equity Compensation Plans Approved by Security Holders  11,552,793(1) $27.32   35,208,058(2)
Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved by Security Holders  0   0   0 
Total  11,552,793(1) $27.32   35,208,058(2)

Plan Category

  Number of Securities
to be Issued Upon
Exercise of
Outstanding Options,
Warrants and
Rights(a)
  Weighted-Average
Exercise Price of
Outstanding Options,
Warrants and
Rights(b)
  Number of Securities
Remaining Available for
Future Issuance Under
Equity Compensation
Plans (Excluding
Securities Reflected in
Column (a))(c)
 

Equity Compensation Plans Approved by Security Holders

   18,027,301(1)  $27.95(2)   20,761,798(3) 

Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved by Security Holders

   0    0    0  

Total

   18,027,301(1)  $27.95(2)   20,761,798(3) 

(1)Consists of 75,043 shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options pursuant to our 1996 Stock Option Plan, 224,090 shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options pursuant to our 1999 Incentive Compensation Plan, 10,945,200 shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options pursuant to our 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan, 16,00016,797 shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options pursuant to the Company’scompany’s 1996 Stock Option Plan; 49,651 shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options pursuant to the company’s 1999 Incentive Compensation Plan; 4,093 shares to be issued upon vest of outstanding restricted stock units and 9,206,650 shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options pursuant to the company’s 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan; 1,539,339 shares to be issued pursuant to outstanding restricted stock units, 360,849 shares to be issued upon vest of outstanding performance share units and 6,580,188 shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options pursuant to the company’s 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan,Plan; and 292,460269,734 shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options pursuant to the ADM International Limited Savings-Related Share OptionOptions Scheme, all as of June 30, 2010.December 31, 2012. The ADM International Limited Savings-Related Share Option Scheme is a program whereby employees in the United Kingdom can save through payroll deductions and have the option to purchase shares at a predetermined, discounted price at a point in time in the future.
(2)Weighted-average exercise price for outstanding stock options.
(3)Consists of 30,946,40020,761,798 shares available for issuance pursuant to our 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan and 4,261,658 shares available for issuance pursuant to the ADM International Limited Savings-Related Share Option Scheme, all as of June 30, 2010.December 31, 2012. Benefits which may be granted under the 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan are options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance shares, performance units and cash-based awards. Only options can currently be granted under the ADM International Limited Savings-Related Share Option Scheme.

Our company does not have any equity compensation plans that have not been approved by our stockholders.

Report of the Audit Committee

The Audit Committee provides assistance to the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibility to the stockholders relating to the Company’s (i) financial statements and the financial reporting process, (ii) preparation of the financial reports and other financial information provided by the Company to any governmental or regulatory body, (iii) systems of internal accounting and financial controls, (iv) internal audit functions, (v) annual independent audit of the Company’s financial statements, (vi) the Company’s major risk exposures, (vii) legal compliance and ethics programs as established by management and the Board, (viii) related-party transactions, and (vii) related-party transactions.

(ix) performance of the compliance function.

The Audit Committee assures that the corporate information gathering, analysis and reporting systems developed by management represent a good faith attempt to provide senior management and the Board of Directors with information regarding material acts, events, and conditions within the Company. In addition, the Audit Committee is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of the independent auditor. The Audit Committee ensures that the Company establishes, resources, and maintains a professional internal auditing function and that there are no unjustified restrictions or limitations imposed on such function. The Audit Committee reviews the effectiveness of the internal audit function and reviews and approves the actions relating to the General Auditor, including performance appraisals and related base and incentive compensation. The Audit Committee is comprised of five independent directors, all of whom are financially literate and one of whom (T.F. O’Neill, the Chairman)O’Neill) has been determined by the Board of Directors to be a “financialan “audit committee financial expert” as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

53


Management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the systems of internal controls. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee


48


reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements in the annual report with management, including a discussion of the quality — not just the acceptability — of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments, the development and selection of the critical accounting estimates, and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements. Also, the Audit Committee discussed with management education regarding compliance with the policies and procedures of the Company as well as federal and state laws.

The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed with the independent auditor, who areis responsible for expressing an opinion on the conformity of those audited financial statements with generally accepted accounting principles, the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, and the matters required to be discussed by the Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114 (The Auditor’s61, as amended (AICPACommunication with Those Charged with Governance,, Professional Standards, Vol. 1AU Section 380), as adopted by the PCAOB in Rule 3200T, including their judgment as to the quality — not just the acceptability — of the Company’s accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements. In addition, the Audit Committee received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent auditor required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent auditor’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence and has discussed with the independent auditor the auditor’s independence from management and the Company. The Audit Committee has adopted an Audit and Non-audit Services Pre-Approval Policy and considered the compatibility of non-audit services with the independent auditor’s independence. The Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors (and the Board of Directors approved) a hiring policy related to current and former employees of the independent auditor.

The Committee discussed the Company’s major risk exposures, the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures, and guidelines and policies to govern the Company’s risk assessment and risk management processes.

The Audit Committee discussed with the internal and independent auditors the overall scope and plans for their respective audits. The Audit Committee met with the internal and independent auditors, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of the accounting and financial controls, and the overall quality of the Company’s financial reporting. The Audit Committee met individually with members of management in executive session. The Audit Committee held ninefive meetings during fiscal year 2010.

the transition period of July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors (and the Board of Directors approved) that the audited financial statements be included in the Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010transition period of July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 for filing with the SEC. The Audit Committee has appointed, subject to ratification by the stockholders of the Company, Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditor for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.

T. F. O’Neill, Chairman
G. W. Buckley
M. H. Carter
P. Dufour
V. F. Haynes
December 31, 2013.

T. K. Crews, Chairman
P. Dufour
T. F. O’Neill
A. Maciel
P. J. Moore

Review and Approval of Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

Various policies and procedures of our company, including our Business Code of Conduct, and Ethics, our bylaws, the charter of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee and annual questionnaires completed by all of our directors and executive officers, require disclosure of and otherwise identify to the company transactions or relationships that may constitute conflicts of interest or otherwise require disclosure under applicable SEC rules as “related

54


person transactions” between our company or its subsidiaries and related persons. For these purposes, a related person is a director, executive officer, nominee for director, or 5% stockholder of the company since the beginning of the last fiscal year and their immediate family members.

Although the company’s processes vary with the particular transaction or relationship, in accordance with our Business Code of Conduct, and Ethics, directors, executive officers and other company employees are


49


directed to inform appropriate supervisory personnel as to the existence or potential existence of such a transaction or relationship. To the extent a related person is involved in the relationship or has a material interest in the transaction, the company’s practice, although not part of a written policy, is to refer consideration of the matter to the board or the Audit Committee. The transaction or relationship will be evaluated by the board or the committee, which will approve or ratify it if it is determined that the transaction or relationship is fair and in the best interests of the company. Generally, transactions and series of related transactions of less than $120,000 are approved or ratified by appropriate company supervisory personnel and are not approved or ratified by the board or a committee thereof.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

During the fiscal yearsix-month transition period ended June 30, 2010,December 31, 2012 none of our directors or executive officers was a participant in or had a relationship regarded as a related person transaction, as considered under applicable regulations of the SEC.

Proposal No. 2 — Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Audit Committee has appointed Ernst & Young LLP as our company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.December 31, 2013. We are asking our stockholders to ratify the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm. Although ratification is not required by our bylaws or otherwise, our board is submitting the selection of Ernst & Young LLP to our stockholders as a matter of good corporate practice. Representatives of Ernst & Young LLP will attend the annual meeting, will have the opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so, and will be available to respond to appropriate questions.

The Board of Directors recommends a voteFOR ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.December 31, 2013. Proxies solicited by the Board will be so voted unless stockholders specify a different choice.

Fees Paid to Independent Auditors

The following table shows the aggregate fees paid to Ernst & Young LLP by us for the services it rendered during the six-month transition period ended December 31, 2012 (FY2012.5) and the fiscal years ended June 30, 20102012 and 2009:

         
  Amount($) 
Description of Fees
 2010  2009 
 
Audit Fees(1) $12,597,000  $14,496,000 
Audit-Related Fees(2)  210,000   1,262,000 
Tax Fees(3)  525,000   1,290,000 
All Other Fees      
Total $13,332,000  $17,048,000 
2011:

   Amount($) 

Description of Fees

  FY2012.5   FY2012   FY2011 

Audit Fees(1)

  $12,964,000    $14,525,000    $14,006,000  

Audit-Related Fees(2)

   299,000     344,000     210,000  

Tax Fees(3)

   710,000     748,000     677,000  

All Other Fees

   —       —      —   

Total

  $13,973,000    $15,617,000    $14,893,000  

(1)Includes fees for audit of annual financial statements, reviews of the related quarterly financial statements, audit of the effectiveness of our company’s internal control over financial reporting, certain statutory audits, and SEC filings.
(2)Includes fees for accounting and reporting assistance and audit-related work in connection with employee benefit plans of our company.
(3)Includes fees related to tax planning advice, tax return preparation, and expatriate tax services.

55


Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies

The Audit Committee has adopted an Audit and Non-audit Services Pre-Approval Policy. This policy provides that audit services engagement terms and fees, and any changes in such terms or fees, are subject to the specific pre-approval of the Audit Committee. The policy further provides that all other audit services, audit-related services, tax services, and permitted non-audit services are subject to pre-approval by the Audit


50


Committee. All of the services Ernst & Young LLP performed for us during FY2012.5 and during the last two full fiscal years were pre-approved by the Audit Committee.

Proposal No. 3 — Stockholder’s Proposal Regarding Political ContributionsAdvisory Vote on Executive Compensation

Marie Bogda, HCR-64 Box 6-B, Mora, New Mexico 87732, beneficial owner of 300 shares of Common Stock

Pursuant to Section 14A of the Company, has notifiedExchange Act, the Companyfollowing proposal provides our stockholders with an opportunity to vote to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of our named executive officers, as disclosed in this proxy statement. In considering your vote, you may wish to review the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” discussion herein, which provides details as to our compensation policies, procedures and decisions regarding the named executive officers, as well as the Summary Compensation Table and other related compensation tables, notes and narrative disclosures in this proxy statement. This vote is not intended to address any specific element of our executive compensation program, but rather the overall compensation program for our named executive officers.

The Compensation/Succession Committee, which is comprised entirely of independent directors, and our board of directors believe that she intendsthe executive compensation policies, procedures and decisions made with respect to presentour named executive officers are competitive, are based on our pay-for-performance philosophy, and are focused on achieving our company’s goals and enhancing stockholder value.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this proxy statement, the board asks our stockholders to voteFOR the adoption of the following resolution to be presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders:

RESOLVED, that the stockholders approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers as disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section, the compensation tables, and the related narrative disclosure in this Proxy Statement.

Although this advisory vote is not binding on our board of directors, the board and the Compensation/Succession Committee will review and expect to take into account the outcome of the vote when considering future executive compensation decisions.

The board of directors will include an advisory vote on executive compensation at each annual meeting of stockholders until the next required vote on the frequency of stockholder votes on executive compensation. The next advisory vote on executive compensation will be held at the annual meeting. The Boardmeeting of Directors andstockholders following the Company accept no responsibility for the proposed resolution and supporting statement.fiscal year ending December 31, 2013.

The Board of Directors recommends athat you voteAGAINSTFOR this stockholder proposal. As required by Securities and Exchange Commission rules, the resolution is printed below:

Whereas: The Supreme Courtapproval of the United States of America published a decision in January of 2010 (re:Citizens United vs. FEC)which expandedadvisory resolution on the constitutional right of free speech protection in regards to political elections/campaigns to include corporations.
Whereas: A corporation acting under this newly expanded right of free speech may overwhelm the free speech rights of shareholders, customers and employees who hold a different political view.
Whereas: Corporations already have many avenues of political speech available to them such as lobbyists, PR firms, corporate PACs and trade/industry associations.
Whereas: The purpose of the corporation is to please customers and shareholders; openly engaging in political elections/campaigns with corporate funds could be counterproductive to the corporate goals.
Resolved: That the board of directors be advised to adopt a policy prohibiting the use of corporate funds for any political election/campaign purposes.
Recommendation of the Board of Directors AGAINST the Proposal
As a global agricultural leader, our company connects the harvest to the home and serves growing global demand for food and energy. Our ability to fulfill this vital purpose is enhanced when government policies impacting our operations promote growth — growth that facilitates job creation as well as ongoing investment in our business, our employees and the communities where we live and work, and enhances returns to our stockholders. For this reason, ADM and ADMPAC, a political action committee maintained by our company and funded by voluntary contributions by our employees, support candidates for political office and organizations that share our pro-growth vision, our aspirations for the future of global agriculture, and our commitment to the people who depend on it for their lives and livelihoods. We believe that these actions are in the best interestscompensation of our stockholders, customers and employees, who share our vision and aspirations regardless of their political persuasions.
All ADM political contributions are madecompany’s named executive officers, as disclosed in strict accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and information about these contributions is available to interested stockholders. Federal law currently prohibits corporations from making contributions directly to candidates for federal office and to national party committees. As a result, ADM does not make such contributions. Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, ADM submits semi-annual reports to Congress, which are publicly available. ADM’s political contributions are subject to regulation at the state level as well. Some states allow corporate contributions to candidates or political parties, and all states require that the identity of the donors and the dollar amounts of such contributions be disclosed. That information is also publicly available.
In addition to the disclosures mandated by law, we report the aggregate amounts that each of ADM and ADMPAC have contributed to candidates, political parties, campaign committees and political associations on our internet site, www.adm.com. Contribution amounts are reported through the most recently completed fiscal quarter of the current year and for the past several fiscal years. ADM management reports to the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee at least annually with respect to our company’s political contributions, compliance and strategy.


51


Our Board believes that our participation in the political process is an important element of our business, is undertaken for the benefit of all stockholders, and is transparent. For these reasons, our Board does not believe that adoption of this proposal is necessary or in furtherance of the best interests of our stockholders.
Accordingly, the Board recommends that stockholders voteAGAINST this stockholder proposal.proxy statement. Proxies solicited by the Board will be so voted unless stockholders specify a different choice.
Proposal No. 4 — Stockholder’s Proposal Regarding Report on Political Contributions
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters General Fund, 25 Louisiana Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, beneficial owner of 429 shares of Common Stock of the Company, has notified the Company that it intends to present the following resolution at the annual meeting. The Board of Directors and the Company accept no responsibility for the proposed resolution and supporting statement.The Board of Directors recommends a voteAGAINST this stockholder proposal. As required by Securities and Exchange Commission rules, the resolution and supporting statement are printed below:
Resolved: That the shareholders of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:
1. Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.
2. Monetary and non-monetary political contributions and expenditures not deductible under Section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political candidates, political parties, political committees and other political entities organized and operating under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and any portion of any dues or similar payments made to any tax exempt organization that is used for an expenditure or contribution that, if made directly by the corporation, would not be deductible under Section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. The report shall include the following:
a. An accounting of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above;
b. Identification of the person or persons in the Company who participated in making the decisions to make the political contribution or expenditure; and,
c. The internal guidelines or policies, if any, governing the Company’s political contributions and expenditures.
The report shall be presented to the Board of Directors’ Audit Committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the Company’s website to reduce costs to shareholders.
Supporting Statement: As long-term shareholders of Archer-Daniels-Midland, we support policies that apply transparency and accountability to corporate political spending.
Absent a system of accountability, we are concerned that Company assets can be used for policy objectives that may be inimical to Archer-Daniels-Midland’s long-term interests.
Based on available public records, it appears that Archer-Daniels-Midland has contributed at least $1.8 million in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle. (CQ MoneyLine:http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do; National Institute On Money In State Politics:http://www.followthemoney.org/).
However, relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political expenditures. For example, Archer-Daniels-Midland’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown.
Adoption of this proposal would bring Archer-Daniels-Midland in line with a growing number of leading companies that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites. At the time this proposal was submitted, 50 companies in the S&P 100 had adopted disclosure and board oversight of their political spending with corporate funds.


52


The Company’s Board and its shareholders need complete disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets.
We urge your supportFORthis critical governance reform.
Recommendation of the Board of Directors AGAINST the Proposal
As a global agricultural leader, our company connects the harvest to the home and serves growing global demand for food and energy. Our ability to fulfill this vital purpose is enhanced when government policies impacting our operations promote growth — growth that facilitates job creation as well as ongoing investment in our business, our employees and the communities where we live and work. For this reason, ADM and ADMPAC, a political action committee maintained by our company and funded by voluntary contributions by our employees, support candidates for political office and organizations that share our pro-growth vision, our aspirations for the future of global agriculture, and our commitment to the people who depend on it for their lives and livelihoods.
All ADM and ADMPAC political contributions are made in strict accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Federal law currently prohibits corporations from making contributions directly to candidates for federal office and to national party committees. As a result, ADM does not make such contributions. The activities of ADMPAC are subject to comprehensive regulation by the federal government, including detailed disclosure requirements. ADMPAC files monthly reports with the Federal Election Commission (the “FEC”) reporting all political contributions, and also files pre-election and post-election FEC reports. Moreover, information regarding all political contributions over $200 is disclosed in public information made available by the FEC. Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, ADM submits semi-annual reports to Congress, which also are publicly available. ADM also submits quarterly reports to Congress disclosing amounts spent on lobbying activities.
ADM’s and ADMPAC’s political contributions are subject to regulation at the state level as well. Some states allow corporate contributions to candidates or political parties, and all states require that the identity of the donors and the dollar amounts of such contributions be disclosed. That information is publicly available.
In addition to the disclosures mandated by law, we report the aggregate amounts that each of ADM and ADMPAC have contributed to candidates, political parties, campaign committees and political associations on our internet site, www.adm.com. Contribution amounts are reported through the most recently completed fiscal quarter of the current year and for the past several fiscal years. ADM management reports to the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee at least annually with respect to our company’s political contributions, compliance and strategy.
ADM participates in certain trade associations, including those that engage in legislative activity related to matters that affect the industry as a whole. Because these associations operate independently of their members and take a wide variety of positions on a number of matters, not all of which ADM supports, disclosure of ADM’s contributions to these associations would not provide our stockholders with a greater understanding of ADM’s strategies or philosophies about our political contributions.
Our Board believes that our current practices regarding political contributions, in combination with federal and state reporting requirements, are sufficient to advance the Company’s interest and provide appropriate public disclosure. For these reasons, our Board does not believe that adoption of this proposal is necessary or in furtherance of the best interests of our stockholders.
Accordingly, the Board recommends that stockholders voteAGAINST this stockholder proposal. Proxies solicited by the Board will be so voted unless stockholders specify a different choice.
Deadline for Submission of Stockholder Proposals

Proposals of stockholders intended to be presented at the next annual meeting and desired to be included in our proxy statement for that meeting must be received by the Secretary, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, 4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, Illinois62526-5666, no later than May 27, 2011November 22, 2013 in order to be included in such


53


proxy statement. Generally, if written notice of any stockholder proposal intended to be presented at the next annual meeting, and not included in our proxy statement for that meeting, is not delivered to the Secretary at the

56


above address between August 6, 2011February 1, 2014 and September 5, 2011March 30, 2014 (or, if the next annual meeting is called for a date that is not within the period from October 5, 2011April 2, 2014 to December 4, 2011,June 1, 2014, if such notice is not so delivered by the close of business on the tenth day following the earlier of the date on which notice of the date of such annual meeting is mailed or public disclosure of the date of such annual meeting is made), or if such notice does not contain the information required by Section 1.4(c) of our bylaws, the chair of the annual meeting may declare that such stockholder proposal be disregarded.

Stockholders with the Same Address

Individual stockholders sharing an address with one or more other stockholders may elect to “household” the mailing of the proxy statement and our annual report. This means that only one annual report and proxy statement will be sent to that address unless one or more stockholders at that address specifically elect to receive separate mailings. Stockholders who participate in householding will continue to receive separate proxy cards. Also, householding will not affect dividend check mailings. We will promptly send a separate annual report and proxy statement to a stockholder at a shared address on request. Stockholders with a shared address may also request us to send separate annual reports and proxy statements in the future, or to send a single copy in the future if we are currently sending multiple copies to the same address.

Requests related to householding should be made by writing Shareholder Relations, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, 4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, Illinois62526-5666 or by calling our Shareholder Relations at 217/424-5656. If you are a stockholder whose shares are held by a bank, broker or other nominee, you can request information about householding from your bank, broker or other nominee.

Other Matters

It is not contemplated or expected that any business other than that pertaining to the subjects referred to in this proxy statement will be brought up for action at the meeting, but in the event that other business does properly come before the meeting calling for a stockholders’ vote, the named proxies will vote thereon according to their best judgment in the interest of our company.

By Order of the Board of Directors

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY

LOGO
M. I. Smith,Secretary

March 22, 2013

57


ANNEX A

Definition and Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures

We use Adjusted ROIC to mean “Adjusted ROIC Earnings” divided by “Adjusted Invested Capital”. Adjusted ROIC Earnings is the Company’s net earnings attributable to controlling interests adjusted for the after-tax effects of interest expense, changes in the LIFO reserve, and other specified items. Adjusted Invested Capital is the average of quarter-end amounts for the trailing four quarters, with each such quarter-end amount being equal to the sum of the BoardCompany’s equity (excluding non-controlling interests), interest-bearing liabilities, the after-tax effect of Directors
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY

-s- D.J. Smith
D. J. Smith,the LIFO reserve, and other specified items. Management usesAdjusted ROIC to measure the Company’s performance by comparingAdjusted ROIC to the Company’s weighted average cost of capital, or WACC.

We use Adjusted EBITDA to mean EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) adjusted for specified items. Management usesAdjusted EBITDA to measure profitability of the Company after adjusting for certain specified items.

Adjusted ROIC,Adjusted ROIC Earnings, Adjusted Invested Capital,andAdjusted EBITDA are non-GAAP financial measures and are not intended to replace or be alternatives to GAAP financial measures. The following tables present reconciliations of Adjusted ROIC earnings to net earnings attributable to controlling interests, the most directly comparable amount reported under GAAP; of Adjusted Invested Capital to Total Shareholders’ Equity, the most directly comparable amounts reported under GAAP; of Adjusted EBITDA to net earnings attributable to controlling interests, the most directly comparable amount reported under GAAP; and the calculation of Adjusted ROIC each for the period ended December 31, 2012.

Adjusted ROIC Calculation(twelve months ended December 31, 2012)

Adjusted ROIC Earnings*

  1,796      =  6.20%

Adjusted Invested Capital*

  28,948      

Secretary*(in millions)

September 24, 2010


54

A-1


Adjusted ROIC Earnings(3)                
    (In Millions)  Quarter Ended  Four Quarters
Ended
Dec 31, 2012
 
   Mar 31, 2012  Jun 30, 2012  Sep 30, 2012  Dec 31, 2012  

Net earnings attributable to ADM

  $399   $284   $182   $510   $1,375  

Adjustments

      

Interest expense

   116    116    106    107    445  

LIFO

   107    (50  53    (113  (3

Other specified items

   85    —      146    (33  198  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total adjustments

   308    66    305    (39  640  

Tax on adjustments

   (117  (25  (71  (6  (219
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net adjustments

   191    41    234    (45  421  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total Adjusted ROIC Earnings

  $590   $325   $416   $465   $1,796  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 
Adjusted Invested Capital(3)              

Trailing

Four Quarter

Average

 
   Quarter Ended  
   Mar 31, 2012  Jun 30, 2012  Sep 30, 2012  Dec 31, 2012  

Shareholders’ Equity(1)

  $18,353   $17,969   $18,237   $18,920   $18,370  
+ Interest-bearing liabilities(2)   10,330    10,323    10,496    9,542    10,173  

+ LIFO adjustment (net of tax)

   394    362    395    325    369  

+ Other specified items

   52    —      135    (41  37  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total Adjusted Invested Capital

  $          29,129   $        28,654   $        29,263   $        28,746   $           28,948  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

(1)Excludes noncontrolling interests

(2)Includes short-term debt, current maturities of long-term debt, capital lease obligations and long-term debt

(PROXY CARD)
(3)Non-GAAP measure: The Company uses certain “Non-GAAP” financial measures as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These are measures of performance not defined by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, and should be considered in addition to, not in lieu of, GAAP reported measures.

000004 MR A SAMPLE DESIGNATION (IF ANY) ADD 1 ADD (1)Adjusted Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) is Adjusted ROIC Earnings divided by Adjusted Invested Capital. Adjusted ROIC Earnings is ADM’s net earnings adjusted for the after tax effects of interest expense, changes in the LIFO reserve, and other specified items. Adjusted ROIC Invested Capital is the sum of ADM’s equity (excluding noncontrolling interests), interest-bearing liabilities, the after tax effect of the LIFO reserve, and the after tax effect of other specified items.
(2)Other specified items are comprised of asset impairment, exit and restructuring costs of $85 million ($52 million, after-tax) for the quarter ended March 31, 2012; An asset impairment charge of $146 million ($107 million, after-tax) and Brazil income tax remeasurement expense of $6 million after-tax for the quarter ended September 30, 2012; and a gain related to the Company’s interest in GrainCorp of $62 million ($49 million, after-tax), a gain related to the sale of certain of the Company’s exchange membership interests of $39 million ($24 million, after-tax), Brazil income tax remeasurement expense of $8 million after-tax and charges related to pension settlements of $68 million ($44 million, after-tax) for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. In the quarter ended December 31, 2012, the tax effect of the $146 million asset impairment charge was decreased by $2 million.

Adjusted EBITDA(1)

    (In Millions)

Six Months
Ended
Dec 31, 2012

Net earnings attributable to ADM

$692

Net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests

2 ADD 3 ADD 4 ADD

Income taxes

303

Earnings before income taxes

997

Interest Expense

213

Depreciation and amortization

407

EBITDA

$        1,617

Adjustments:

LIFO Credit

(60

Gain related to GrainCorp investment

(62

Gain related to sale of membership interests

(39

Loss on Sale of Gruma

146

Pension settlement charges

68

Debt modification costs

5 ADD 6 Admission Ticket C123456789 000000000.000000 ext 000000000.000000 ext 000000000.000000 ext 000000000.000000 ext 000000000.000000 ext 000000000.000000 ext

Adjusted EBITDA

$1,675

(1) Non-GAAP measure: The Company uses certain “Non-GAAP” financial measures as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These are measures of performance not defined by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, and should be considered in addition to, not in lieu of, GAAP reported measures.

(1)Adjusted EBITDA is EBITDA adjusted for certain specified items as described above.

A-2


LOGO

LOGO
Electronic Voting Instructions

You can vote by Internet or telephone!

Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!

Instead of mailing your proxy, you may choose one of the two voting methods

outlined below to vote your proxy.

VALIDATION DETAILS ARE LOCATED BELOW IN THE TITLE BAR.

Proxies submitted by the Internet or telephone must be received by5:00 p.m.

Eastern Time, on November 3, 2010. May 1, 2013.

LOGO

Vote by Internet

• Log on to the Internet and go to

   http://proxy.georgeson.com/

• Follow the steps outlined on the secured website.

LOGO

Vote by telephone

• Call toll free 1-877-456-7915 within the USA,

    US territories & Canada any time on a touch tone

    telephone. There isNO CHARGEto you for the call.

Follow the instructions provided by the recorded message.

Using ablack ink pen, mark your votes with an X as shown in
this example. Please do not write outside the designated areas. Annual Meeting Proxy Card 1234 5678 9012 345 3 IF YOU HAVE NOT VOTED VIA THE INTERNET OR TELEPHONE, FOLD ALONG THE PERFORATION, DETACH AND RETURN THE BOTTOM PORTION IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. 3
x
LOGO

q IF YOU HAVE NOT VOTED VIA THE INTERNETOR TELEPHONE, FOLD ALONG THE PERFORATION, DETACH AND RETURN THE BOTTOM PORTION IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE.q

  A Proposals — Archer-Daniels-Midland Company’s Board of Directors recommends ayou vote “FOR” ItemsProposals 1, and 2, and “AGAINST” Items 3 and 4. 3.

1.

Election of Directors:

ForAgainstAbstainForAgainstAbstainForAgainstAbstain+
01 - A.L. Boeckmann¨¨¨

02 - G.W. Buckley 02 —

¨¨¨

03 - M.H. Carter 03 —

¨¨¨
04 - T.K. Crews¨¨¨

05 - P. Dufour 04 —

¨¨¨

06 - D.E. Felsinger 05 — V.F. Haynes 06 —

¨¨¨
07 - A. Maciel 07 —¨¨¨

08 - P.J. Moore 08 —

¨¨¨

09 - T.F. O’Neill 09 —

¨¨¨
10 - D. Shih¨¨¨

11 - K.R. Westbrook 10 —

¨¨¨

12 - P.A. Woertz

¨¨¨

ForAgainstAbstainForAgainstAbstain
2.Ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent 3. Adopt Stockholder’s Proposal Regarding Political Contributions. accountantsauditors for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. 4. Adopt Stockholder’s Proposal Regarding ReportDecember 31, 2013.¨¨¨

3. Advisory Vote on 5. Executive Compensation.

¨¨¨

4.

In their discretion, upon any other business that may properly come Political Contributions. before the meeting.

  B Non-Voting Items Change of Address — Please print your new address below. Comments — Please print your comments below. Meeting Attendance Mark the box to the right if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting. C Authorized Signatures — This section must be completed for your vote to be counted. — Date and Sign Below
IMPORTANT: Please sign exactly as your name(s) appear(s) above. When shares are held by joint tenants, both should sign. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator, trustee or guardian, please give full title as such. If a corporation, please sign in full corporate name by President or other authorized officer. If a partnership, please sign in partnership name by authorized person.

Date (mm/dd/yyyy) — Please print date below.    Signature 1 — Please keep signature within the box.Signature 2 — Please keep signature within the box. C 1234567890 J N T MR A SAMPLE (THIS AREA IS SET UP TO ACCOMMODATE 140 CHARACTERS) MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND 1 U P X 1 0 0 7 0 8 1 MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND 01823D

//

 

LOGO


2013 Annual Meeting Admission Ticket

2013 Annual Meeting of

(PROXY CARD)
2010 Annual Meeting Admission Ticket 2010 Annual Meeting of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company Shareholders November 4, 2010 James R. Randall Research Center 1001 Brush College Road Decatur, Illinois Upon arrival, please present this admission ticket Archer-Daniels-Midland Company Stockholders

May 2, 2013

8:30 a.m. Central Time

James R. Randall Research Center

1001 Brush College Road

Decatur, Illinois

Upon arrival, please present this admission ticket

and photo identification at the registration desk.

q IF YOU HAVE NOT VOTED VIA THE INTERNETOR TELEPHONE, FOLD ALONG THE PERFORATION, DETACH AND RETURN THE BOTTOM PORTION IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. Proxy — ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY This Proxy is Solicited on Behalf of the Board of Directors for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders on November 4, 2010 This proxy when properly executed will be voted in the manner directed herein by the undersigned Stockholder. If no direction is made, this Proxy will be voted “FOR” Items 1 and 2 and “AGAINST” Items 3 and 4. The undersigned hereby appoints P. J. Moore, M.H. Carter and P. A. Woertz as Proxies, with the power of substitution, to represent and to vote, as designated on the reverse side, all the shares of the undersigned held of record on September 9, 2010, at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on November 4, 2010 and any adjournments thereof. This proxy, when properly executed, will be voted in the manner directed on the reverse side. If no direction is made, this proxy will be voted “FOR” Items 1 and 2 and “AGAINST” Items 3 and 4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” ITEMS 1 AND 2 AND “AGAINST” ITEMS 3 AND 4. (Important – To be signed and dated on reverse side)q

 

LOGO+

LOGO

This Proxy is Solicited on Behalf of the Board of Directors for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders on May 2, 2013

The undersigned holder of Common Stock of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, revoking all proxies heretofore given, hereby appoints P.J. Moore, M.H. Carter and P.A. Woertz as Proxies, with the full power of substitution, to represent and to vote, as designated on the reverse side, all the shares of the undersigned held of record on March 11, 2013, at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 2, 2013 and at any adjournments or postponements thereof. The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement.

This proxy when properly executed will be voted in the manner directed on the reverse side. If no direction is made, this proxy will be voted “FOR” Proposals 1, 2 and 3.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS YOU VOTE “FOR” PROPOSALS 1, 2 AND 3.

(Important — To be signed and dated on reverse side)

CNon-Voting Items
Change of Address— Please print your new address below.

  Comments — Please print your comments below.

Meeting Attendance
Mark the box to the right if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting.

¨

+

IF VOTING BY MAIL, YOUMUST COMPLETE SECTIONS A AND B ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CARD.