UNSPSC 50201715: Fruit tea

A type of food that is processed in liquid form by adding different food or food additive on fruit, fruit juice, fruit meat, fruit skin and others.

UNSPSC 50201715 Fruit tea (Commodity) represents a narrow product line within the broader beverage and food-service procurement activity in state and local education and corrections systems. State and local governments do not appear to be sourcing fruit tea as a standalone item under this code in current procurement. Recent opportunities tagged to this code span general grocery, produce, beverage, and food-service contracts, but the solicitations do not isolate fruit tea as a distinct line item or procurement focus. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice cafeteria food products IFB (304T26300CF, due May 4, 2026) encompasses beverages across its approximately 382 line items but does not enumerate fruit tea. Similarly, the Clark County School District beverage RFP (26027AIT, due April 30, 2026) targets juice boxes, bottled water, and dairy-free milk alternatives for school meals—not fruit tea. Fairfax County Public Schools' Master Grocery K-12 contract (IFB 2000004323, due April 27, 2026) and Rockwood R-VI School District's child nutrition grocery solicitation (due April 29, 2026) cover broad grocery categories but do not call out fruit tea. The Douglas County School System fresh produce and eggs RFP (due March 4, 2026) and food supply and distribution RFP (due February 18, 2026) also do not reference fruit tea as a procurement category. School districts and state-agency food-service operations dominate recent activity under this code designation, but the actual buying focus is on high-volume staples, proteins, produce, and beverages suited to mass meal programs, not specialty tea products.

The code shows no recent activity directly aligned with fruit tea procurement. Georgia, Texas, Nevada, Virginia, and Missouri school districts and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice are the primary recent issuing bodies, but none have solicited fruit tea as a line item in their food-service or grocery contracts. The mismatch between the code's nominal scope and the recent opportunities suggests either miscoding by issuing authorities or minimal current demand for fruit tea in state and local food-service contracting. A business development professional should verify whether fruit tea procurement activity exists outside these visible solicitations or whether the code has fallen into disuse for this product category.