UNSPSC 50393448: Organic king ruby grape purees

The variety of organic table grapes known as organic king ruby grapes which have been pureed.

UNSPSC 50393448 Organic king ruby grape purees, a Commodity code, sees sparse recent activity in state and local procurement that diverges sharply from the code's nominal scope. The recent opportunities block contains sixteen opportunities, none directly soliciting organic grape purees or products materially aligned with that specification. Instead, the opportunities span canned applesauce (Oregon Department of Corrections), dried fruit bars and apple crisps (Austin Independent School District), weekly food orders (State of Illinois), food and consumable products for state-supported living centers (Texas Health and Human Services Commission), fresh produce (Hancock County Board of Education, Georgia; Douglas County School System, Georgia), general commodities for school nutrition (City of Bridgeport, Connecticut), supplemental food and consumables for state hospitals (Texas Health and Human Services Commission), cafeteria food products (Texas Department of Criminal Justice), master grocery supply (Fairfax County Public Schools, Virginia), and multiple other school nutrition and institutional food service procurements. The code shows no recent relevant activity and represents a mismatch between UNSPSC taxonomy assignment and the actual purchasing activity captured in state and local records.

The issuing bodies are predominantly school districts and state agencies managing food service: school nutrition programs across Georgia, Texas, Missouri, Virginia, and Connecticut; state departments of corrections and health and human services; and educational institutions serving student meal programs. Geographic spread includes activity in Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia, with school districts as the dominant buyer category. No opportunities in the recent-opportunities block are soliciting organic grape purees, grape juice concentrates, or products matching the code's description; the widespread mismatch suggests either consistent misclassification of food service buys under this code or the code's minimal procurement relevance in current state and local practice.