Dear Geetha,
Thks yr attachment. Interesting document indeed. (in fact already the 4th page opens with some strange English 
) but nonetheless an unquestionably well-intentioned production.
I presume these are some of the relevant paragraphs (slightly more exact than yr extract) –
HAZARD - Any physical, chemical, microbiological or quality property that can alter, taint, damage or render useless, any critical property of a product or process, which may result in a risk to health and safety, or quality deterioration.
QUALITY - Fitness for purpose. A product or service that can consistently meet the specific requirements of the consumer.
CRITICAL CONTROL POINT - Any point where loss of control leads to an unacceptable health risk.
Any CRITICAL LIMIT - Prescribed tolerances that shall not be exceeded to ensure that the critical control point effectively controls the identified hazard. Can also apply to ensuring that the customers specified requirements are met for quality.
First comment is that the text is not exactly clear in meaning. Intentional probably.
I had a quick look through the document. There are 2 aspects which relate to yr original query (I think) -
1. Although it’s not entirely obvious (or certain), a partial answer to yr original query seems to be in section 4, ie –
All quality parameters including sensory & physical criteria and/or directions for use
- All safety parameters (including microbiological and chemical criteria)
This seems to imply that they do not consider any physical hazards as safety related but I’m sure they didn’t intend that since it is obviously incorrect (unless Australians are very unusually lucky eaters
). Perhaps they meant non-safety related physical items (eg see below). (can ask Woolworths I suppose)
Anyway, the extract above illustrates that they interpret sensory qualities (which I agree are not normally classed as BCP or safety related) as “quality” as per my first post [this non-safety statement is also debatable but I won’t go into that here]. Presumably, their “quality” may also include “damage” (a very general term indeed). However “taint” could be a safety or non-safety parameter depending on the case, eg chemical petroleum contamination or simply a” bad taste” so perhaps “chemical” or “quality’ are possible classes. Basically, IMO, they really should have explained the meaning of their terminology in more detail but this is not an unusual criticism.
Also, the use of the terms in item 1. is somewhat special to Woolworths since –
2. I deduce (and it is also implied in the text, section 3a) that Woolworth’s hv expanded their
HACCP interpretation to include non-safety characteristics, eg their “quality” factors. This is a sort-of throwback to the early
HACCP days. They seem to be using terms like general risk assessment (including their quality factors) as equivalent to doing a
HACCP plan which is rather atypical of current usage (focussing on safety only) but basically up-to-them. The result is that their standard looks a bit strange compared to most current formats. Also gives them better back-coverage I suppose.
Accordingly, their usage of
HACCP terms like critical limit has also been expanded as per the definition quoted above.
I hope the above makes sense (and is correct!), please revert if it doesn’t or you don’t agree.
Any other comments welcome of course!.
Charles.C
added - seems to me that Woolworths themselves got a bit confused too since their use of "CCP" in section 3a does not appear to match their own definition.
