Dear TGC,
Would like to expand on my preceding post and hopefully suggest one answer to yr OP.
IMO, the BRC tree for Zone Status (ZS) may not be fully appropriate to apply to yr product which, to my understanding, is intrinsically RTE when packed. Reasoning follows -
There are 3 possibilities for ZS - (a) low risk, (b) high care, © high risk.
Type (c) is clearly not possible from tree or text.
Type (a) is textually introduced as intended for a situation where –
The significance to human health of microbiological contamination is reduced because the product is unsuitable for the growth of pathogens or is designed to undergo a later validated kill step that ensures the product is safe to eat.
IMO the key word in second possibility is “designed”. I think yr finished product does not match either of the above criteria. Additionally, it does not match any of the 4 bulleted categories within “Low Risk”.(although, if all the product is validatable as hard cheese, it might). The only caveat to this conclusion is that the 4 categories shown are not claimed to cover all possible circumstances.
(added later) - just to illustrate the (L.mono.) significance of soft/hard cheese, can refer to Pg11, 19 respectively of these documents -
BRC_CFA_Micro_Criteria_Guidance_Ed_1.2.pdf 1.54MB
18 downloads
BRC F048 page19.pdf 198.26KB
17 downloads
this 2003, QMRA shows some relative risk assessments including various categories of cheese, eg pgs 24 - 25.
Listeria monocytogenes Main.pdf 380.54KB
13 downloads
Type (b) has 4 mandatory, bulleted requirements within “High Care”. I think yr product can match all these requirements. Also note that this zone is stated to include production of unpasteurized soft cheeses.
If yr labelling does show cooking requirements as per the decision tree, it could presumably be classified as low risk, for example if initially combined with a frozen, to-be-cooked pizza as mentioned in the tree. However I think that conclusion is not the BRC intention for current type of product so that the tree is slightly inappropriate in this case. Hence the existence of the BRC textual footnote perhaps.
So IMO, the appropriate ZS is High Care. Of course BRC, or other posters, may completely disagree.
Rgds / Charles.C