Hi ChocoTiger,
Thanks for yr correction of my misinterpretation of SQF Level 3. The hazard of the non-User. 
Just as an unrelated comparison, IMEX of auditing Shipped Goods the typical L/C requirement is for Certification of Weight and Quality. Horses for Courses.
I have to say that I find it difficult to interpret the Code’s 2.4.4.1 as other than implying that “quality and legality” are 2 separate issues.
I deduce that legal (“Quality”) factors are regarded as an SQF “Quality hazard” (also see below).
It’s a shame that the SQF Code offers no Glossary definitions for “Hazard”, “CCP”, “CQP”, “Critical Limit”, “Quality”, or “Quality Hazard”. The SQF Guidance is an excellent compilation but permanently caveatted by its non-binding to SQF and (possibly) by slow updates.
There is an analogous discussion over “extended” HACCPs like SQFLv3 with respect to the Woolworths WQA Standard here –
http://www.ifsqn.com...rd-–-version-5/
The OP may find some of these (updated) Woolworths definitions to be useful although not guaranteed to match SQF’s interpretation/requirements.
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 - A product or service that consistently meets the requirements of the customer and the product specification.
CRITICAL CONTROL POINT - Any process point where loss of control leads to an unacceptable risk.
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.
QUALITY CRITICAL POINT - A defined point in a process where loss of control could lead to the product being outside the specification.
(I deduce legal/Regulatory factors for “Quality” are included within “critical property” in the hazard def.)
as a side-note, it's interesting to note that the BRC standard also includes weight control, legality issues but reserves “hazard” to its Codex Safety origins and avoids terminologies like “Quality Plans”.
As per WQA, The BRC definition of “Quality” is “Meeting the customer’s specification and expectation.”
Furthermore, and unlike both SQF and WQA, BRC boldly provides a definition of “Legality” – “In compliance with the law in the place of production and in the countries where the product(s) is/are intended to be sold.”
This definition has a potential scope of considerable width, especially when including non-safety issues. Nonetheless, in practice, BRC seem to de-emphasise the latter other than their directed focus on weight, volume etc. (Owners of the Interpretation Guidelines may know more on this aspect )
Hopefully the OP is now not more confused. The problem is that, IMO, none of the above Standards are (unintentionally or otherwise) adequately transparent. In some aspects the only arbiter is audit experience. And this Forum of course.
