UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

__________

FORM 10-K

x		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
		For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010
		OR
o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes x   No o

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes o       No x

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for at least the past 90 days. Yes x   No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes x   No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K . o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o      No x

The aggregate market value of the voting Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2010, was $1,274,371,545. For purposes of this computation only, the Registrant’s directors and executive officers were considered to be affiliates of the Registrant. Such characterization shall not be construed to be an admission or determination for any other purpose that such persons are affiliates of the Registrant.

There were 49,976,896 shares of Common Stock outstanding as of February 17, 2011.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of: (1) the Company’s Annual Report to Shareholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (see Parts I, II and IV of this Form 10-K ), and (2) the Company’s Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement of the Company dated March 15, 2011 (see Part III of this Form 10-K).

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION—FORM 10-K FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 INDEX

PART I		3
Item 1. Business		3
General		3
Description of Business		3
Flavors & Fragrances Group		4
Color Group		4
Asia Pacific and China Groups		5
Research and Development/Quality Assurance		5
Products and Application Activities		5
Raw Materials		6
Competition		6
Foreign Operations		7
Patents, Formulae and Trademarks		7
Employees		7
Regulation		7
Item 1A.  Risk Factors		7
Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments		10
Item 2.  Properties		10
Item 3.  Legal Proceedings		14
Item 4.  Reserved		18
PART II		19
Item 5.  Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities		19
Item 6.  Selected Financial Data		20
Item 7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation		20
Item 7A.  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk		20
Item 8.  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		20
Item 9.  Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure		20
Item 9A.  Controls and Procedures		20
Item 9B.  Other Information		21
PART III		21
Item 10.  Directors, Executive Officers of the Registrant and Corporate Governance		21
Item 11.  Executive Compensation		21
Item 12.  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters		21
Item 13.  Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence		21
Item 14.  Principal Accountant Fees and Services		21
PART IV		22
Item 15.  Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules		22
Financial Statements		22
Financial Statement Schedule		22
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		23
Schedule II  Valuation and Qualifying Accounts		24
SIGNATURES		25
EXHIBIT INDEX		E-1
EX-10.1
EX-13.1
EX-21
EX-23.1
EX-31
EX-32
EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT
EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT
EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This document contains forward-looking statements that reflect management’s current assumptions and estimates of future economic circumstances, industry conditions, Company performance and financial results. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for such forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events to differ materially from those expressed in those statements. A variety of factors could cause the Company’s actual results and experience to differ materially from the anticipated results. These factors and assumptions include the pace and nature of new product introductions by the Company and the Company’s customers; the Company’s ability to successfully implement its growth strategies; the outcome of the Company’s various productivity-improvement and cost-reduction efforts; changes in costs of raw materials, including energy; industry and economic factors related to the Company’s domestic and international business; growth in markets for products in which the Company competes; industry and customer acceptance of price increases; actions by competitors; currency exchange rate fluctuations; and the matters discussed below under the heading “Risk Factors” and under Part II, including the critical accounting policies incorporated by reference from pages 23-24 of the Company’s 2010 Annual Report to Shareholders. The Company does not undertake to publicly update or revise its forward-looking statements even if experience or future changes make it clear that any projected results expressed or implied therein will not be realized.

PART I

Company’s corporate expenses. Financial information regarding the Company’s two reportable segments and the operations included within Corporate & Other is incorporated by reference to the information set forth on pages 41 through 43 of the Company’s 2010 Annual Report to Shareholders under the heading “Segment and Geographic Information.”

Flavors & Fragrances Group

The Company is a global developer, manufacturer and supplier of flavor and fragrance systems for the food, beverage, pharmaceutical, personal care and household-products industries. The Company’s flavor formulations are used in many of the world’s best-known consumer products. Under the unified brand names of Sensient Flavors, Sensient Dehydrated Flavors and Sensient Fragrances, the Group is a supplier to multinational companies.

The Flavors & Fragrances Group produces flavor and fragrance products that impart a desired taste, texture, aroma and/or other characteristics to a broad range of consumer and other products. This Group includes the Company’s dehydrated flavors business, which produces ingredients for food processors. The main products of the Group are systems products, including flavor-delivery systems, and compounded and blended products. In addition, the Group has strong positions in selected ingredient products such as essential oils, natural and synthetic flavors, and aroma chemicals. The Group serves food and non-food industries. In food industries, markets include savory, beverage, dairy, confectionery and bakery flavors. In non-food industries, the Group supplies fragrance products to the personal and home care-markets and supplies flavor products to the pharmaceuticals market.

Operating through its Sensient Dehydrated Flavors business, the Company believes it is the second largest producer (by sales) of dehydrated onion and garlic products in the United States. The Company is also one of the largest producers and distributors of chili powder, paprika, chili pepper and dehydrated vegetables such as parsley, celery and spinach. Domestically, the Company sells dehydrated products to food manufacturers for use as ingredients and also for repackaging under private labels for sale to the retail market and to the food service industry. In addition, Sensient Dehydrated Flavors is one of the leading dehydrators of specialty vegetables in Europe and it has a growing presence in China. Advanced dehydration technologies utilized by Sensient Dehydrated Flavors permit fast and effective rehydration of ingredients used in many of today’s popular convenience foods.

The Flavors & Fragrances Group operates principally through the Company’s subsidiaries Sensient Flavors LLC and Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC. The Group’s principal manufacturing plants are located in California, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Color Group

The Company is a developer, manufacturer and supplier of colors for businesses worldwide. The Company provides natural and synthetic color systems for use in foods, beverages and pharmaceuticals; colors and other ingredients for cosmetics and pharmaceuticals; and technical colors for industrial applications and digital imaging.

The Company believes that it is one of the world’s largest producers (by sales) of synthetic and natural colors, and that it is the world’s largest manufacturer (by sales) of certified food colors. The Company sells its synthetic and natural colors to domestic and international producers of beverages, bakery products, processed foods, confections, pet foods, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. The Company also makes inkjet inks and other dyes and pigments used in a variety of non-food applications.

The Color Group operates principally through the Company’s subsidiary Sensient Colors LLC, which has its principal manufacturing plants in Missouri, California, New Jersey, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

The Color Group operates under the following trade names:

	•		Sensient Food Colors (food and beverage colors);
	•		Sensient Pharmaceutical Technologies (pharmaceutical colors and coatings);
	•		Sensient Paper Colors (paper dyes and colorants);
	•		Sensient Cosmetic Technologies (cosmetic colors and ingredients and systems); and
	•		Sensient Technical Colors (including paper colors; industrial colors for plastics, leather, wood stains, antifreeze and other uses; inkjet colors and inks; specialty inks; and display imaging).

The Company believes that its advanced process technology, state-of-the-art laboratory facilities and equipment, and a complete range of synthetic and natural color products constitute the basis for its market leadership position.

Asia Pacific and China Groups

The Asia Pacific Group and the China Group focus on marketing the Company’s diverse product line in the Pacific Rim under the Sensient name. Through these operations, the Company offers a full range of products from its Flavors & Fragrances Group and Color Group, as well as products developed by regional technical teams to appeal to local preferences.

Sales, marketing and technical functions are managed through the Asia Pacific Group’s headquarters in Australia. Manufacturing operations are located in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Philippines. The Asia Pacific Group maintains offices for research and development, as well as sales, in Indonesia, India, Korea, Singapore and Thailand.

The China Group’s operations include a manufacturing facility in China and multiple sales and technical offices.

Research and Development/Quality Assurance

The development of specialized products and services is a complex technical process calling upon the combined knowledge and talents of the Company’s research, development and quality assurance personnel. The Company believes that its competitive advantage lies in its ability to work with its customers to develop and deliver high-performance products that address the distinct needs of those customers.

The Company’s research, development and quality assurance personnel support the Company’s efforts to improve existing products and develop new products tailored to customer needs, while providing on-going technical support and know-how to the Company’s manufacturing activities. We employed 589 people in research and development, quality assurance, quality control and lab technician positions as of December 31, 2010.

Expenditures for research and development related to continuing operations in calendar year 2010 were $30.6 million, compared with $29.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2009, and $28.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2008. As part of its commitment to quality as a competitive advantage, the Company holds certifications under the requirements established by the International Organization for Standardization in Geneva, Switzerland, through its ISO 9000 series of quality standards. Certified sites include Flavors & Fragrances Group plants in the United States, Spain, Italy, Mexico, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and France, and Color Group plants in the United States, Mexico and the United Kingdom. The Flavors & Fragrances Group plant in Spain has also received additional certification through the ISO 14001 and 18001 quality standards.

Products and Application Activities

The Company’s strategic focus is on the manufacture and marketing of high-performance components that bring life to products. Accordingly, the Company devotes considerable attention and resources to the development of product applications and processing improvements to support its customers’ numerous new and reformulated

products. Many of the proprietary processes and formulae developed by the Company are maintained as trade secrets and under confidentiality agreements with customers.

Within the Flavors & Fragrances Group, development activity is focused on ingredients, flavors and flavor systems that are responsive to consumer trends and the processing needs of our food and beverage customers. These activities include the development of functional ingredient systems for foods and beverages, savory flavors, and ingredient systems for prepared foods and flavors and ingredients for dairy, confectionery and other applications. The Company believes that the development of yeast derivatives and other specialty ingredients also provides growth opportunities in bionutrients and biotechnology markets, such as pharmaceuticals, vitamins, vaccines and bioremediation.

Within the Color Group, development activity for food and beverage product lines is focused on value-added products derived from synthetic dyes and pigments and natural food and beverage colors and on color systems. The Company also produces a diverse line of colors and ingredients for cosmetics and pharmaceutical applications and technical colors for industrial applications and specialty chemicals for digital imaging.

Raw Materials

The Company uses a wide range of raw materials in producing its products. Chemicals used to produce certified colors are obtained from several domestic and foreign suppliers. Raw materials for natural colors, such as carmine, beta-carotene, annatto and turmeric, are purchased from overseas and U.S. sources. In the production of flavors and fragrances, the principal raw materials include essential oils, aroma chemicals, botanicals, fruits and juices, and are obtained from domestic and foreign suppliers. Flavor enhancers and secondary flavors are produced from yeast and vegetable materials such as corn and soybeans. Chili peppers, onion, garlic and other vegetables are acquired under annual contracts with numerous growers in the western United States and Europe. The Company has expanded its sources of vegetables to include growers in China and expects to add growers in other Asian countries.

The Company believes that alternate sources of materials are available to enable it to maintain its competitive position in the event of an interruption in the supply of raw materials from a single supplier.

Competition

All Company products are sold in highly competitive markets. While no single factor is determinative, the Company’s competitive position is based principally on process and applications expertise, quality, technological advances resulting from its research and development, and customer service and support. Because of its highly differentiated products, the Company competes with only a few companies across multiple product lines, and is more likely to encounter competition specific to an individual product.

	•		Flavors and Fragrances. Competition to supply the flavors and fragrances industries has taken on an increasingly global nature. Most of the Company’s customers do not buy their entire flavor and/or fragrance products from a single supplier and the Company does not compete with a single supplier in all product categories. Competition for the supply of flavors and fragrances is based on the development of customized ingredients for new and reformulated customer products, as well as on quality, customer service and price. Competition to supply dehydrated vegetable products is present through several large and small domestic competitors, as well as competitors in other countries. Competition for the supply of dehydrated vegetables is based principally on product quality, customer service and price.
	•		Color. Competition in the color market is diverse, with the majority of the Company’s competitors specializing in either synthetic dyes and pigments or natural colors. The Company believes that it gains a competitive advantage as the only major basic manufacturer of a full range of color products, including synthetic dyes and pigments as well as natural colors. Competition in the supply of inkjet inks is based principally upon price, quality and service, as well as product development and technical capabilities. The Company competes against a number of large and small suppliers of inkjet inks.

•

Asia Pacific and China. Because of the broad array of products available to customers of the Asia Pacific Group and the China Group, the Company believes that it is able to offer a wider product base than many of its competitors. Competition is based upon reliability in product quality, service and price as well as technical support available to customers.

Foreign Operations

The information appearing under the heading “Geographic Information” in Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company, which appears on page 43 of the 2010 Annual Report to Shareholders, is incorporated herein by reference.

Patents, Formulae and Trademarks

The Company owns or controls many patents, formulae and trademarks related to its businesses. The businesses are not materially dependent upon patent or trademark protection; however, trademarks, patents and formulae are important to the business of the Company.

Employees

As of December 31, 2010, the Company employed 3,618 persons worldwide.

Regulation

Compliance with government provisions regulating discharges into the environment, or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operations for the year covered by this report except for those settlement amounts set forth in Item 3 of this Report under Environmental Matters. Current compliance is not expected to have a material adverse effect in the next two years except for those settlement amounts set forth in Item 3 of this Report under Environmental Matters. The production, packaging, labeling and distribution of certain of the products of the Company in the U.S. are subject to the regulations of various federal, state and local governmental agencies, in particular the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. The Company is subject to similar regulations in many international markets.

Item 1A.   Risk Factors.

As with any business, the Company’s business and operations involve risks and uncertainties. In addition to the other discussions in, and incorporated by reference in, this Report, particularly those in “Management’s Discussion & Analysis of Operations & Financial Condition” incorporated by reference from pages 19 through 26 of the 2010 Annual Report to Shareholders and “Forward Looking Statements” on page 26 of the 2010 Annual Report to Shareholders, the following factors should be considered:

• In some product lines, most of our sales are made to a relatively small number of customers; if we lose any of those customers, sales and operating results could decline.

In some of our product lines, our sales are concentrated to a small number of customers. While we do not currently have any single customer that we consider to be significant to us as a whole, the loss of a significant customer of a product line could substantially affect the sales and profitability of that line, which may cause us to re-evaluate that line. Those developments could affect our results. In addition, the financial condition of our customers may adversely affect their ability to buy from us or to pay for products that they have already purchased.

• Many of our products are used in items for human consumption and contact. We may be subject to product liability claims and product recalls, which could negatively impact our profitability and corporate image.

We sell flavors, fragrances and colors which are used in foods, beverages, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and other items for human consumption or contact. These products involve risks such as product contamination or spoilage, product tampering and other adulteration. We may be subject to liability if the consumption or use of our flavors,

fragrances and colors, or products which incorporate ingredients we manufacture, cause injury, illness or death. In addition, we or our customers may need to recall products in the event of contamination or damage.

A significant product defect, product liability judgment or product recall may negatively impact our profitability for a period of time depending on publicity, product availability, scope, competitive reaction and consumer attitudes. Even if a product liability claim is unsuccessful or is not fully pursued, the negative publicity surrounding any assertion that our products caused illness, injury or death could adversely affect our reputation with existing and potential customers and our corporate image.

• Consolidation has resulted in customers with increased buying power, which can affect our profitability.

Many of our customers have consolidated in recent years and we expect the combination trend to continue. These consolidations have often produced large, sophisticated customers with increased buying power who are more capable of resisting price increases. If the larger size or greater buying power of those customers results in additional negotiating strength, the prices we are able to charge could be negatively affected and our profitability could decline.

• Intense competition may result in reduced sales and profitability.

The industries and markets in which we operate are highly competitive. That competition can reduce both our sales and the prices at which we are able to sell our products, which can in turn negatively affect our profitability.

• Our sales and profitability are affected by changing consumer preferences and changing technologies.

Although we do not generally make or sell proprietary consumer products, many of our products are sold to companies which develop and market consumer products. Sales of these flavors, fragrances, colors and inks depend in part upon our customers’ ability to identify and meet consumer preferences and their sales and marketing efforts, all of which are beyond our control. Our sales could also be affected by changing technologies that could impact consumer demand for products that contain our flavors, fragrances, colors and inks. Therefore, we depend upon our customers’ ability to create markets for the consumer products which incorporate many of the flavors, fragrances, colors and inks which we manufacture.

• If we do not maintain an efficient cost structure, our profitability could decrease.

Our success depends in part on our ability to maintain an efficient cost structure. We regularly initiate cost-reduction measures that could impact our manufacturing, sales, operations and information systems functions. If we do not continue to manage costs and achieve additional efficiencies, or we do not successfully implement related strategies, our competitiveness and our profits could decrease.

• Commodity and energy price increases or material shortages may reduce our profits.

We use many different commodities as raw ingredients. We also use petroleum-based raw materials and other raw materials whose production is energy intensive. In addition, various energy sources are used in our production and distribution processes. Commodity and energy prices are subject to significant volatility caused by market fluctuations, supply and demand, currency fluctuation, production and transportation disruption, world events, and changes in governmental programs. Commodity and energy price increases, including any increases that may result from regulation of greenhouse gases, will raise both our raw material costs and operating costs. We may not be able to increase our product prices enough to offset these increased costs. Increasing our prices also may reduce sales volume and related profitability.

In addition, we obtain some of the raw materials that we use from a single supplier or a limited number of suppliers, and problems with those suppliers could affect the availability of those materials. Even if there are multiple suppliers of a particular raw material, there are occasional shortages. An unavailability or shortage of a raw material could negatively affect our operations using that raw material and thus our results.

• There are many laws and regulations applicable to our industries. Compliance with those requirements is costly to us and can affect our operations. Failure to comply could also be costly and disruptive.

Our facilities and products are subject to many laws and regulations relating to the processing, packaging, storage, distribution, quality and safety of food, drugs and other consumer products, inkjet inks and industrial colors. These laws and regulations are administered in the United States by the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal and state governmental agencies. We are subject to similar governmental regulation and oversight abroad. Compliance with these laws and regulations can be costly and affect our operations. Also, if we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we could be subject to administrative penalties and injunctive relief, civil remedies, fines and recalls of our products.

• Environmental compliance may be costly to us.

Our operations are subject to extensive and increasingly stringent laws and regulations which pertain to the discharge of materials into the environment (including greenhouse gases) and the handling and disposition of wastes. These rules operate or will operate at both the federal and state levels in the United States, and there are analogous laws at many of our overseas locations. We are currently involved in disputes relating to compliance with environmental laws. Settlements have been reached by the principals and their insurers in one of those disputes as described in Item 3 of this Report. Environmental regulations, and the potential failure to comply with them, can have serious consequences, including the costs of compliance and defense, interference with our operations or the ability to obtain required permits, civil and administrative penalties and negative publicity.

• Operating in foreign countries exposes us to increased risks, including foreign currency risks.

We operate and sell our products in many foreign countries. The international aspects of our business subject us to risks that could materially impact our operating results, including: foreign exchange rate fluctuations; difficulties in staffing and managing foreign personnel in diverse cultures; transportation delays or interruptions; and the effects of international political developments and political and economic instability. In addition, changes in policies by the United States or foreign governments could negatively affect our operating results due to changes in duties, tariffs, trade regulations, taxes or limitations on currency or fund transfers.

• We depend on certain key personnel, and the loss or retirement of these persons may harm our business.

Our success depends in large part on the continued service and availability of our key management and technical personnel, and on our ability to attract and retain qualified new personnel. The competition for these individuals can be significant, and the loss of key employees could harm our business. In addition, as some of these persons approach retirement age, we need to provide for smooth transitions, and our operations and results may be negatively affected if we are not able to do so.

• We may not successfully complete and integrate future acquisitions, which could adversely affect our operating results.

We have acquired many companies and operations in the past and may resume growth by acquisition in the future. Our future growth through acquisitions could involve significant risks that may have a material adverse effect on us. We may also be at risk for factors associated with acquisitions that the Company has made in the past. These risks include: inability to integrate successfully our acquired operations’ businesses and personnel; the inability to realize anticipated synergies, economies of scale or other value; difficulties coordinating management of operations at new sites; the strain placed on our personnel, systems and resources; possible loss of an acquired business’ customer base; and the loss of key employees of acquired businesses. Acquired companies may also have significant latent liabilities which may not be discovered before an acquisition or fully reflected in the price we pay.

We may also need to finance future acquisitions, and the terms of any financing, and the need to ultimately repay or refinance any indebtedness, may have negative effects on us. Acquisitions also could have a dilutive effect on our financial results. Acquisitions also generally result in goodwill, which would need to be written off against earnings in the future if it becomes impaired.

• Our ability to successfully maintain and upgrade our information technology systems may affect our competitiveness and our profits could decrease.

Our success depends in part on our ability to maintain a current information technology platform for our business to operate. We routinely review and upgrade our information technology systems in order to better manage and report the sales, manufacturing and other operations of our business. If we do not continue to maintain our information technology platform and successfully implement upgrades to the system, our competitiveness and profits could decrease.

• World events and natural disasters are beyond our control and could affect our results.

World events, such as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the situations in North Korea Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East, can adversely affect national, international and local economies. Economies can also be affected by natural disasters or by epidemics. Such events and conditions, as well as the current impairment of financial markets, high unemployment and constrained consumer spending, have adversely affected and could continue to affect our revenues and profitability, particularly if they occur in locations in which we or our customers have significant operations.

Item 1B.   Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2.   Properties

The following table sets forth information as to the principal properties of the Company and its subsidiaries. All properties are owned except as otherwise indicated below. All facilities are considered to be in good condition (ordinary wear and tear excepted) and suitable and adequate for the Company’s requirements.

(  ) Indicates number of properties at the locations, if more than one.

*Indicates one leased property at the location.

**Production has ceased at indicated facility and property is to be sold.

Item 3.   Legal Proceedings

Environmental Matters

Superfund Claim

In July 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) notified the Company’s subsidiary Sensient Colors Inc. (“Sensient Colors”) that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) for activities at the General Color Company Superfund Site in Camden, New Jersey (the “Site”). The EPA requested reimbursement of $10.9 million in clean-up costs, plus interest. Sensient Colors advised the EPA that the Site had been expressly excluded from the Company’s 1988 stock purchase of H. Kohnstamm & Company, Inc. (now Sensient Colors). The selling shareholders had retained ownership of and liability for the Site, and some became owners of General Color Company, which continued to operate there until the mid-1990s. In a letter to the EPA in January 2005, the Company outlined legal challenges to the recoverability of certain costs and urged the EPA to pursue General Color Company and related parties. The EPA informed Sensient Colors that it was unwilling to discuss these legal challenges without prior conditions. In 2005, a private developer, Westfield Acres Urban Renewal Association II, LP, pursuant to an agreement with the EPA, began redevelopment efforts at the Site (construction of affordable housing) by demolishing buildings thereon. Thereafter, the EPA removed allegedly contaminated soil from the locations where the buildings once stood.

In March 2007, the United States filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey against Sensient Colors claiming “over $16 million” in response costs allegedly incurred and to be incurred by the EPA pursuant to CERCLA. Sensient Colors moved to dismiss the United States’ complaint, which motion was denied by the Court in October 2007. Sensient Colors timely filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the United States’ complaint, as well as a third-party complaint against current and former owners and/or operators of the Site. The United States moved to strike Sensient Colors’ affirmative defenses. In an August 12, 2008 Opinion and Order, following briefs and oral argument, the Court partly granted and partly denied the United States’ motion, effectively preserving most of Sensient Colors’ affirmative defenses, either as originally pled or with changes outlined by the Court. Sensient Colors promptly filed an amended pleading incorporating the revised affirmative defenses. On July 29, 2008, Sensient Colors filed a third-party complaint adding Kohnstamm Inc. (a Canadian affiliate of General Color Company) and its president Avtar Singh as defendants.

In late August 2008, in the course of reviewing documents produced by the EPA, Sensient Colors discovered an e-mail exchange between EPA officials that Sensient Colors believes supports many of the legal theories and affirmative defenses advanced by Sensient Colors in the litigation and undermines key United States cost recovery claims. By letter dated August 26, 2008, based on the above document and other evidence adduced in the case, Sensient Colors demanded that the United States dismiss its case with prejudice and reimburse Sensient Colors for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred. In response to the August 26, 2008 letter, the United States withdrew, without prejudice, its then-pending motion to limit the scope of review to EPA’s administrative record and told the Court that it would respond to Sensient’s letter by September 10, 2008. The United States then sought additional time for its review of Sensient Colors’ demand. In an October 3, 2008 Letter Order, the Court directed the United States to provide Sensient with notice of its decision with respect to the demand for dismissal by October 31, 2008. In a letter to Sensient Colors dated October 31, 2008, the United States declined to voluntarily dismiss the case but agreed, with certain conditions, not to oppose depositions of current and former EPA employees on the issues raised in Sensient Colors’ letter of August 26, 2008. The United States reserved its rights to seek limitations on discovery and to seek to limit review of EPA’s choice of response action to the administrative record.

Using the evidence that supports its demand for dismissal, Sensient Colors moved for leave to amend its responsive pleading to include a new affirmative defense, a counterclaim against the United States and the EPA, and third-party claims against certain EPA employees or agents. After briefing, the motion for leave to amend was argued before the magistrate judge on November 18, 2008. On February 13, 2009, the magistrate issued an opinion and order denying Sensient Colors’ motion for leave to amend. Sensient Colors appealed the magistrate’s decision to the district court judge. On July 22, 2009, the district court judge issued a decision affirming the magistrate’s opinion and order, largely on sovereign immunity grounds.

Sensient Colors also issued subpoenas or deposition notices to numerous current or former EPA officials. Motions were filed to block the depositions of former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, former EPA Regional Administrator Jane Kenny, and EPA On-Scene Coordinator David Rosoff. On January 28, 2009, the magistrate judge issued an opinion and order denying or delaying Sensient Color’s ability to conduct the foregoing depositions. Sensient Colors exercised its right to appeal the magistrate’s decision to the district court judge. On July 22, 2009, the district court judge issued a decision reversing the magistrate and ordering the depositions of Kenny and Rosoff to proceed.

On May 8, 2009, Sensient Colors filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal with prejudice of the United States’ claims.

Prior to arguing the summary judgment motion and to scheduling the depositions of the current and former EPA officials, the United States and Sensient Colors agreed to meet with each other, with the parties involved in the Pleasant Gardens dispute described below and with interested insurers to determine if a resolution short of trial was possible. The parties met and ultimately agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the matter by specified payments among the parties and their insurers. As a result of the proposed settlements, Sensient’s results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2009 included pre-tax charges for estimated settlement liabilities and related legal costs, net of insurance reimbursements, of approximately $11.3 million. In July 2010, the U.S. District Court in New Jersey approved the consent decree with the United States. Sensient Colors and the third-party defendants settled the third-party claims, which were then dismissed by the Court pursuant to Consent Orders. On August 4, 2010, the Court closed the case.

Pleasant Gardens Realty Corp. v. H. Kohnstamm & Co., et al.

The owner of Pleasant Gardens (“Property”), an apartment complex adjacent to the General Color Superfund Site, filed a complaint in New Jersey state court in November 2003 against H. Kohnstamm & Co. (now Sensient Colors), the Company, General Color Company, and unknown defendants. Plaintiff sought to hold defendants liable, in an unspecified amount, for damages related to the alleged contamination of the Property. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Company without prejudice. Sensient Colors filed an answer denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses. In November 2006, the Camden Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”) filed condemnation litigation against plaintiff (and other purported interested parties) to take the Property. Sensient Colors was not a party to the condemnation litigation. In advance of its filing, the Agency notified plaintiff that its appraiser had assessed the fair market value of the Property at $7.7 million and that its environmental consultant had estimated the costs for environmental cleanup, purportedly to meet requirements of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), at $7.5 million. That amount was held in escrow pending the outcome of the lawsuit. Sensient Colors and plaintiff pursued a reduction in the scope and cost of the Agency’s proposed environmental cleanup in meetings with the DEP, the Agency and another party involved in the condemnation, the New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation (“NJSCC”). In March 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming the Agency, the NJSCC and the DEP as additional defendants in furtherance of this effort. In April 2007, Sensient Colors filed its answer to the amended complaint, including cross claims against these newly added parties. The Agency, the DEP and the New Jersey Schools Development Authority (“NJSDA”) (which replaced the NJSCC as a state agency effective August 7, 2007) each filed answers, cross-claims and counter-claims; Sensient Colors has responded to all three cross-claims. Document discovery was completed in July 2008, and expert and rebuttal expert reports were exchanged.

Sensient Colors advised the Court and the other parties in this litigation of the developments in the Superfund Claim as described above. Sensient Colors took supplemental depositions of several DEP officials and served subpoenas upon five current or former EPA officials. The United States, though not a party to the Pleasant Gardens case, initially sought to quash those subpoenas before the Pleasant Gardens court. On November 17, 2008, the United States removed the subpoenas and related proceedings to federal court. At an initial court conference on the removed proceedings on February 19, 2009, the federal magistrate judge asked for additional briefing on the issue of the government’s standing to seek to quash the state court subpoenas. In September 2009, the federal magistrate judge ordered that former EPA officials could be deposed but only as to “individual” and not “official” matters. Sensient Colors appealed this decision to the district court judge.

On January 8, 2009, the state court judge recused himself from the Pleasant Gardens case (as well as the related insurance coverage case) because of a conflict of interest and the Pleasant Gardens case was reassigned to another judge. In light of the recusal and reassignment, the new judge re-scheduled the trial to commence no earlier than June 1, 2009, and indicated that depending on how certain outstanding discovery issues were resolved, the trial might be deferred further. On April 20, 2009, the court further extended the pretrial schedule and set a trial date for October 5, 2009. On July 24, 2009, Sensient Colors filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the DEP’s proposed remedy was arbitrary and capricious. At a conference held on September 18, 2009, the state court judge ordered that discovery be completed before November 15, 2009, that dispositive motions be heard on December 11, 2009, and that the trial commence on February 8, 2010. The judge also ordered that mediation occur before November 15, 2009.

As described above, Sensient Colors met with the parties to the Pleasant Gardens litigation, to the Superfund claims described above and their respective insurers, and they ultimately agreed to a settlement to resolve the matter by specified payments among the parties and their insurers. As a result of the settlements, Sensient’s results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2009, included pre-tax charges for estimated settlement liabilities and related legal costs, net of insurance reimbursements, of approximately $11.3 million. The settlement of the Pleasant Gardens litigation was memorialized in a consent decree that was approved by the Superior Court of New Jersey after an opportunity for public comment. The Agency and the NJSDA have been remediating the Property with reimbursement from the funds held by the Court in escrow. Should the remediation cost less than the escrowed amount, the balance of the escrow should be paid to Sensient Colors.

Commercial Litigation

Cherry Blossom Litigation

In June 2009, Sensient sued one of its product vendors, Cherry Blossom LLC (“Cherry Blossom”), a supplier of processed cherry products in Michigan, when Cherry Blossom prepared to close its facility and refused to return to Sensient raw cherries to which Sensient held title. Sensient sued for conversion, breach of contract, possession of the cherries, and money damages of approximately $0.5 million. Cherry Blossom and its lender opposed the claim.

Cherry Blossom counter-claimed against Sensient, primarily relating to ownership of certain cherry processing formulas. Sensient sold Cherry Blossom certain materials containing formulas used in the processing of cherries. Cherry Blossom claims it has an exclusive right to use Sensient’s formulas. On June 22, 2009, Cherry Blossom moved for an injunction to prohibit Sensient from using its cherry processing formulas. The court denied that motion.

Crossroads Debt, LLC (“Crossroads”), a secured lender to Cherry Blossom, intervened in the case and asserted multiple claims against Cherry Blossom related to Cherry Blossom’s $1.4 million debt to Crossroads. Crossroads also asserted cross-claims against Sensient related to offsets Sensient took against its payments to Cherry Blossom for the processed cherry product Sensient purchased from Cherry Blossom.

Under Sensient’s contract with Cherry Blossom, Cherry Blossom would purchase Sensient’s raw cherries for use in making finished cherry product. Sensient then purchased the finished product from Cherry Blossom at a purchase price reduced by setoffs for the amount Cherry Blossom owed Sensient for raw cherries. Eventually, Cherry Blossom directed Sensient to make payments directly to Crossroads, which Sensient did for about seven months, until Cherry Blossom ceased operations.

At a mediation on March 24, 2010, Crossroads claimed for the first time that because Sensient paid for the finished cherry product by offsetting antecedent debt, Sensient was not a “buyer in the ordinary course of business” as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code. As a result, Crossroads claimed that Sensient was not entitled to take such offsets because Crossroads claimed it had a perfected senior lien on the offset funds. Crossroads sought the imposition of a constructive trust over $1.4 million of such funds and a judgment requiring their return by Sensient. The total exposure could have exceeded this amount due to interest.

In addition, Sensient asserted indemnification claims against Crossroads related to a US Department of Labor “hot goods” issue. The US Department of Labor prohibited Sensient from selling in interstate commerce cherries made

by Cherry Blossom’s employees and for which Sensient had paid Cherry Blossom because Cherry Blossom failed to pay its employees their wages earned when they processed the cherries.

Crossroads moved for summary disposition on April 12, 2010, based on the Uniform Commercial Code argument it raised at mediation on March 24, 2010. Sensient opposed the motion and argued that Sensient was entitled to summary disposition, not Crossroads. At a hearing on the motion, the court ruled in Sensient’s favor, dismissing all of Crossroads’ claims against Sensient.

On May 27, 2010, Cherry Blossom filed a bankruptcy petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan. Such filing triggered an automatic stay of all litigation pending against Cherry Blossom, including the instant case. The state court determined that the automatic stay in Cherry Blossom’s bankruptcy case did not prevent it from signing the order granting Sensient summary judgment disposing of Crossroads’ claims in Sensient’s favor. The court also decided that the bankruptcy filing stayed indefinitely the remaining claims regarding possession of the cherries, hot goods, and returned goods.

The bankruptcy trustee stipulated to lift the stay as to the issue of possession of the 2006 cherries, and on September 7, 2010, the Michigan state court lifted the administrative stay over the three remaining issues: (1) Sensient’s claim for reimbursement from Crossroads in connection with the U.S. Department of Labor hot goods issue described above; (2) Sensient’s claim for reimbursement from Crossroads for certain returned goods; and (3) ownership of the 2006 cherry inventory. The court accepted the parties’ stipulation that these three issues could be resolved on briefs and set a schedule accordingly. The Court ordered the parties to file simultaneously opening briefs on October 1, 2010, and file simultaneously reply briefs on October 8, 2010. The Court heard oral argument on these three issues on December 6, 2010. On January 10, 2011, the Court entered an order that Crossroads is entitled to the first lien position on the remaining cherry inventory and denying Sensient’s claims against Crossroads for reimbursement. Pursuant to the Court’s order of January 10, 2011, any proceeds from the sale of the remaining cherry inventory will be paid to the Court and then released to Crossroads. Sensient will appeal the Court’s decision regarding these three issues. Sensient also intends to move the Court to stay the enforcement of its January 10, 2011, order pending appeal.

S.A.M. (Amaral) v. Sensient Technologies Corp., et al.

On August 5, 2010, the owners and operators of a 135-acre vineyard near the dehydration facility formerly operated by Sensient Dehydrated Flavors, LLC (“SDF”) in Greenfield, California filed a lawsuit in California state court in Monterey, California. The lawsuit names as defendants both Sensient Technologies Corporation (“Sensient”) and SDF and a response to the complaint was filed on October 1. The suit sets out claims for nuisance per se, trespass and negligence per se and alleges almost a million dollars in losses plus punitive damages, all based on the fact that, between the summer of 2007 and early October, 2009, SDF was processing onions that allegedly caused an “onion taint” in the grapes and wine produced from the plaintiffs’ vineyard. While SDF had an air permit covering its operations, its Monterey County use permit specifically named only chili peppers, celery and parsley, but not onions, as commodities that could be dehydrated at the Greenfield facility. SDF’s effort to modify the Greenfield facility’s use permit to specifically include the processing of onions was blocked by local vineyard owners, and SDF has since closed its Greenfield facility and consolidated its onion dehydration operations at its fully-permitted and more efficient facility at Livingston, California.

This lawsuit follows an earlier lawsuit ( J. Lohr Vineyards and Wines v. Sensient Technologies ) (the “Lohr lawsuit”) brought by a larger, adjacent landowner. The Lohr lawsuit was settled in December, 2009, with an agreement that included SDF’s abandonment of onion processing at its Greenfield facility but did not require the payment of any settlement amount to Lohr despite Lohr’s substantial damage claims. The S.A.M. plaintiffs have essentially copied, and seek to rely upon, the factual allegations and expert analyses developed in the Lohr lawsuit before a settlement was reached. The S.A.M. plaintiffs will not, however, be receiving any assistance from Lohr. Sensient and SDF believe the S.A.M. plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intend to pursue a vigorous defense. Trial has been set to commence on October 31, 2011, and the parties have been directed to attend a mandatory settlement conference on September 30, 2011.

Daito Kasei Kogyo Co. Ltd. vs. Sensient Cosmetic Technologies SAS

In 1992 Sensient Cosmetic Technologies SAS (“SCT”) and Daito Kasei Kogyo Co., Ltd. (“Daito”) entered into a distribution agreement pursuant to which SCT became the exclusive distributor in Europe of coloring agents and ingredients manufactured in Japan by Daito and, in turn, Daito became the exclusive distributor in Japan of certain products produced in France by SCT. By 2008, the sale of Daito products represented €4 million of SCT’s sales. In contrast, Daito’s sales of SCT’s products in Japan amounted to only €0.4 million in 2008. The agreement was entered into for an initial period to end on December 31, 1993 and was tacitly renewed for two-year periods through December 31, 2009, subject to a requirement of six months’ notice for termination.

On July 7, 2009, Daito notified SCT of its decision to terminate SCT’s distributorship in Europe, with effect as of February 10, 2010. SCT informed Daito that the notice of termination was insufficient in light of the lengthy commercial relationship between the parties. Daito eventually ostensibly agreed to extend the notice period but the commercial relationship did not function as it had in the past. On August 10, 2010, SCT filed a complaint before the Paris Commercial Court alleging that Daito wrongfully terminated its long-standing established commercial relationship with SCT, that SCT should have been given a notice period of thirty-six months in light of the twenty-year relationship between the parties and that Daito should pay damages to SCT of over €3.8 million.

On January 26, 2011, Daito filed a response in a hearing of the Court in which it denied any liability for SCT’s claims and asserted counter-claims of €1.5 million for unlawful termination of Daito’s distributorship in Japan, unlawful termination of an alleged “agency contract” in Japan and SCT’s cancellation of certain Daito orders in October, 2010.

The court has scheduled a hearing on March 23, 2011, at which SCT will file its response to Daito’s defenses and counter-claims.

The Company is involved in various other claims and litigation arising in the normal course of business. In the judgment of management, which relies in part on information from Company counsel, the ultimate resolution of these actions will not materially affect the consolidated financial statements of the Company except as described above.

Item 4.  Reserved

The Company has employed all of the individuals named above, in their current positions, for at least the past five years except as follows. Mr. Collopy has held his present office since October 2006, and previously served as Assistant Treasurer (February 2006 - October 2006), Director, Treasury Operations (2004-2006), and Manager,

Corporate Development (1999-2004). Mr. Daniels has held his present office since July 22, 2010, and previously served as Assistant Treasurer (October 2008 - July 2010), Director, Treasury Services (February 2006 - October 2008) and Manager, Treasury & Risk (April 2005 - February 2006). Mr. Hammond was Vice President before being named Senior Vice President in December 2008. Dr. Hering has held his current position since December 8, 2009, and previously served as appointed Vice President, Marketing & Technology (2007-2009). Mr. Hobbs was Vice President before being named Senior Vice President in December 2008. Mr. Makal has held his present office since July 22, 2010, and previously served as Vice President Taxation (December 2006 - July 2010) and Director Taxation (2000-2006). Mr. Malin has held his present office since April 2005 and previously served as Assistant Treasurer (2001-2005). Mr. Paul Manning has held his present office since July 22, 2010, and previously served as General Manager, Colors - North America (November 2009 - July 2010) and General Manager, Food Colors - North America (June 2009 - November 2009). Mr. McCarthy has held his present office since July 22, 2010, and previously served as appointed President Flavors & Fragrances Group (June 2009 - July 2010) and General Manager Dairy Systems (September 2008 - June 2009). Mr. Pepper has held his current position since July 22, 2010, and previously served as Vice President, Administration (February 2008 - July 2010), Vice President - Human Resources (September 2007 - January 2008), Chief Financial Officer - Color Group (2005-2007). Mr. Rolfs has held his present position since July 22, 2010, and previously served as Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer (2001-2010). Mr. Wilkins has held his present position since April 23, 2009, and previously served as appointed President, Asia Pacific (2005-2009).

  Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting. There has been no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2010, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B.   Other Information

 None.

PART IV

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Sensient Technologies Corporation
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Sensient Technologies Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010 and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, and have issued our reports thereon dated February 25, 2011. Such consolidated financial statements and reports are included in your 2010 Annual Report to Shareholders and are incorporated herein by reference. Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of the Company listed in Item 15. That consolidated financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.

In our opinion, that consolidated financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
February 25, 2011

SIGNATURES

 Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

/s/ John L. Hammond
John L. Hammond
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

Dated: February 25, 2011

 Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below as of February 25, 2011, by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities indicated.

/s/ Kenneth P. Manning		/s/ James A.D. Croft
Kenneth P. Manning		James A.D. Croft
Chairman of the Board and		Director
Chief Executive Officer
/s/ Richard F. Hobbs		/s/ William V. Hickey
Richard F. Hobbs		William V. Hickey
Senior Vice President and		Director
Chief Financial Officer
/s/ Jeffrey T. Makal		/s/ Peter M. Salmon
Jeffrey T. Makal		Peter M. Salmon
Vice President, Controller and		Director
Chief Accounting Officer
/s/ Hank Brown		/s/ Elaine R. Wedral
Hank Brown		Elaine R. Wedral
Director		Director
/s/ Fergus M. Clydesdale		/s/ Essie Whitelaw
Fergus M. Clydesdale		Essie Whitelaw
Director		Director

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION