In addition, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, similar intercompany sale transactions have been reclassified. These reclassifications had no effect on the Company's financial condition, changes in financial condition, and results of operations including no effect on reported gross profit, net earnings or earnings per common share for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002. A summary of these reclassifications is as follows:

The Company has also reclassified similar intercompany sale transactions for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. These reclassifications had no effect on the Company's financial condition, changes in financial condition, and results of operations including no effect on reported gross profit, net earnings or earnings per share for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. The effect of these reclassifications reduced Net Sales and Other Operating Income and Cost of Products Sold as reported in the Company's 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders by $568 million.

Net sales and other operating income as adjusted, by segment, for each quarter in the year ended June 30, 2002, is as follows:

Oilseeds Processing sales increased 13 percent to $2.3 billion for the quarter primarily due to increased sales volumes and higher average selling prices. These increases were primarily due to increased South American exports of oilseeds and oilseed products, and higher average vegetable oil selling prices resulting from increased demand. Oilseeds Processing operating profits decreased 10% to $76 million for the quarter due primarily to lower North American and European oilseed crush volumes. Vegetable oil demand remained strong but domestic protein meal demand has slowed. Cottonseed and softseed processing profits have declined due to reduced seed supplies and high seed prices relative to product values.

Corn Processing sales increased 5 percent to $520 million for the quarter due principally to the recently-acquired MCP operations partially offset by lower average ethanol selling prices. Operating profits decreased slightly for the quarter due to lower average ethanol selling prices and slightly higher corn costs. These decreases were partially offset by improved results of the Company's sweetener operations.

Wheat Processing sales increased 3 percent to $364 million for the quarter due principally to increased average selling prices for wheat flour products. Operating profits for the quarter remained relatively unchanged from the comparable period of a year ago as increased average selling prices were offset by increased commodity price levels for wheat.

Agricultural Services sales increased 82 percent to $3.0 billion due principally to the recently acquired operations of A. C. Toepfer International, which had net sales of $1.2 billion during the quarter, and to a lesser extent, higher commodity prices. Operating profits increased due primarily to improved operating results of domestic country elevator and international operations. These increases were partially offset by reduced operating results of the Company's barge transportation operations due principally to lower freight rates.

Other sales increased 14 percent to $794 million for the quarter due primarily to increased average selling prices of cocoa products, and to a lesser extent, increased sales volumes of edible beans, food additives, and amino acid products. Operating profits of the Other segment increased principally due to reduced losses in the Company's private equity fund investments and improved results of the Company's eastern European starch ventures. These increases were partially offset by reduced operating results of the Company's cocoa operations and Gruma corn flour ventures.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At September 30, 2002, the Company continued to show substantial liquidity with working capital of $2.3 billion and a current ratio, defined as current assets divided by current liabilities, of 1.4. Working capital decreased $298 million during the quarter principally due to the Company's acquisition of MCP, which was funded through short-term borrowings. Capital resources remained strong as reflected in the Company's net worth of $6.7 billion. The Company's ratio of long-term debt to total capital (the sum of the Company's long-term debt and shareholders' equity) at September 30, 2002, was 33 percent compared to 32 percent at June 30, 2002. This ratio is a measure of the Company's long-term liquidity and is an indicator of financial flexibility.

On October 1, 2002, the Company issued $500 million of debentures which are due in 2032, and bear interest at a rate of 5.935 percent. The Company's ratio of long-term debt to total capital increased to 36 percent as a result of this debt issuance.

Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments

Changes related to contracts and commitments during the quarter ended September 30, 2002, were principally due to the Company's acquisition of MCP. As described above, the Company's short-term borrowings increased $672 million during the quarter primarily due to the acquisition of MCP and to fund working capital requirements. The Company assumed $233 million of debt in connection with the MCP acquisition with aggregate maturities of $4 million in both fiscal 2004 and 2005, $28 million in fiscal 2006, and $197 million thereafter. The Company also assumed MCP lease obligations with aggregate future minimum lease payments of $80 million.

Critical Accounting Policies

There were no material changes during the quarter ended September 30, 2002.

There were no material changes during the quarter ended September 30, 2002.

STATE ACTION. The Company has been named as a defendant, along with other companies, in one putative class action antitrust suit alleging violations of the Alabama antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of lysine, and seeking an injunction against continued alleged illegal conduct, damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises certain indirect purchasers of lysine in the State of Alabama during certain periods in the 1990s. This action was filed on August 17, 1995 in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Alabama, and is encaptioned Ashley v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 95-336. On March 13, 1998, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add approximately 300 individual plaintiffs. On March 23, 2000, defendants fil ed a motion for summary judgment in light of a recent Alabama Supreme Court case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws apply only to intrastate commerce. On August 11, 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 15, 2000, defendants moved to dismiss or in the alternative to strike plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 19, 2001, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for restraint of trade in interstate commerce and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' restraint of trade in intrastate commerce claim. However, on July 3, 2001, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this claim. On July 18, 2001, plaintiffs moved to amend, alter or vacate the Court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. On July 24, 2001, plaintiffs noticed an appeal of that part of the Court's order granting defendants' summary judgment motion. On October 9, 2001, the Court denied plai ntiffs' motion to amend, alter or vacate the Court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. The plaintiffs subsequently noticed an appeal of the Court's order dated June 19, 2001 regarding the unjust enrichment claim. On May 30, 2002, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add a claim under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Statute. On July 2, 2002, defendants filed a motion to strike and/or dismiss that claim. On September 13, 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed without opinion the trial court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss and grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment.

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP/CITRIC ACID STATE CLASS ACTIONS

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in five putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of both high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. Two of these actions allege violations of the California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. The putative class in one of these California cases comprises certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid in the State of California during the period January 1, 1992 until at least October 1995. This action was filed on October 11, 1995 in the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, California and is entitled Gangi Bros. Packing Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 37217. The putative clas s in the other California case comprises certain indirect purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid in the state of California during the period October 12, 1991 until November 20, 1995. This action was filed on November 20, 1995 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned MCFH, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 974120. The California Judicial Council has bifurcated the citric acid and high fructose corn syrup claims in these actions and coordinated them with other actions in San Francisco County Superior Court and Stanislaus County Superior Court. As noted in prior filings, the Company accepted a settlement agreement with counsel for the citric acid plaintiff class. This settlement received final court approval and the case was dismissed on September 30, 1998. The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in West Virginia state court involving

the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action also alleges violations of the West Virginia antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the West Virginia action comprises certain entities within the State of West Virginia that purchased products containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid for resale from at least 1992 until 1994. This action was filed on October 26, 1995, in the Circuit Court for Boone County, West Virginia, and is encaptioned Freda's v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 95-C-125. The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant in a putative class action antitrust suit filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia involving t he sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action alleges violations of the District of Columbia antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the District of Columbia action comprises certain persons within the District of Columbia that purchased products containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994. This action was filed on April 12, 1996 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, and is encaptioned Holder v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 96-2975. On November 13, 1998, plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted. Plaintiffs are seeking to conduct additional discovery. The Company, along with other companies, has been na med as a defendant in a putative class action antitrust suit filed in Kansas state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, court costs and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the Kansas action comprises certain persons within the State of Kansas that purchased products containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during at least the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994. This action was filed on May 7, 1996 in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas and is encaptioned Waugh v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Case No. 96-C-2029. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is currently pending.

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP/CITRIC ACID/LYSINE STATE CLASS ACTIONS

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in six putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine. These actions allege violations of the California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. One of the putative classes is comprised of certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine in the State of California during a certain period in the 1990s. This action was filed on December 18, 1995 in the Superior Court for Stanislaus County, California and is encaptioned Nu Laid Foods, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 39693. The oth er five putative classes comprise certain indirect purchasers of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990s. One such action was filed on December 14, 1995 in the Superior Court for Stanislaus County, California and is encaptioned Batson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 39680. The other actions are encaptioned Abbott v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41014 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus

County Superior Court); Noldin v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41015 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court); Guzman v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41013 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court) and Ricci v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 96-AS-00383 (Filed on February 6, 1996, Sacramento County Superior Court). As noted in prior filings, the plaintiffs in these actions and the lysine defendants have executed a settlement agreement that has been approved by the court, and the California Judicial Council has bifurcated the citric acid and high fructose corn syrup claims and coordinated them with other actions in San Francisco County Superior Court and Stanislaus County Superior Court.

MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE ACTIONS

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in fourteen putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers in the United States and three putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of nucleotides and monosodium glutamate in Canada.

CANADIAN ACTIONS. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in three actions filed pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act in which the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Competition Act with respect to the sale of nucleotides and monosodium glutamate in Canada. The putative classes are comprised of direct and indirect purchasers in Canada during the period from January 1, 1990 to November 1, 1999. The plaintiffs in these actions seek general, punitive and exemplary damages and "disgorgement of ill-gotten overcharges", plus prejudgment interest and costs of the actions. The first action was filed on or about September 7, 2001 in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, and is encaptioned Long Duc Ngo and Christopher McLean v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., Court File No. 37708. The second action was filed on or about October 4, 2001 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver and is encaptioned Abel Lam and Klas Consulting & Investment Ltd. v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al Court File No. S015589. The third action was filed on or about October 18, 2001 in the "Cour Superieure" in the Province of Quebec and District of Quebec, and is encaptioned Colette Brochu v. Ajinomoto U.S.A. Inc., et al., No.: 200-06-000019-011. On September 19, 2002, the plaintiffs in the Ontario action served a proposed Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim together with a Notice of Motion seeking the Court's leave to amend the Statement of Claim. The proposed amendments include the substitution of one of the representative plaintiffs, the removal of all allegations pertaining to the sale of nucleotides (but not the allegations relating to the sale of monosodium glutamate), and further particulars for the allegations of conspiracy as against the Company and the other defendants. The plaintiffs further seek the court's approval to launch a new and distinct class action in respect of the sale of nucleotides only. The Company is not named as a defendant to the proposed nucleotides class action. No date has yet been set for the plaintiffs' motion to amend the Statement of Claim. The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Ontario action has been scheduled for March 2003. No schedule has been established for the actions pending in British Columbia and Quebec.

FEDERAL ACTIONS. Eight of these putative class actions allege violations of federal antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the price of monosodium glutamate, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate, and seek various relief, including treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these cases comprise certain direct purchasers of monosodium glutamate, disodium inosinate and/or disodium guanylate during certain periods in the 1990's to the present. The Company has never produced or sold disodium inosinate or disodium guanylate. One such action was filed on October 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Thorp, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., NoC99 4752 (VRW). The second action was filed on October 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Premium Ingredients, Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C 99 4742(MJJ). The third action was filed on October 28, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Felbro Food Products v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., No.C99 4761(MJJ). The fourth action was filed on November 17, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned First Spice Mixing Co., Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. C 99 4977 (PJH). The fifth action was filed on November 23, 1999 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is encaptioned Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Inc. et al., No. 99 CV 5501. The sixth action was filed on December 16, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is encaptioned M. Phil Yen, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co. Inc., et al., No. 9 9 Div 06514 (EK). The seventh action was filed on January 27, 2000 in the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Chicago Ingredients, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C 00 0308 (JL). The eighth action was filed on April 12, 2000 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is encaptioned Heller Seasonings & Ingredients, Inc. v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 00-CV-1905. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these actions for coordinated pretrial discovery in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On June 3, 2001, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company and the plaintiffs in these eight actions have executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay the plaintiffs $1.25 million. On August 15, 2002 the Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement. On November 7, 2002, the Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement.

STATE ACTIONS. The Company, along with at least one other company, has been named as a defendant in four putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers. These actions allege violations of California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the price of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these actions comprise certain indirect purchasers of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990's. The first action originally was filed on June 25, 1999 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned Fu's Garden Restaurant v. Archer-Daniels-Mid land Company, et al., Civil Action No. 304471. The second action was filed on January 14, 2000 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned JMN Restaurant Management, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 309236. The third action was filed on May 2, 2000 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned Tanuki Restaurant and Lilly Zapanta v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al, Civil Action No. 311871. The fourth action