UNSPSC 50395467: Organic sweet dream peach purees

The variety of organic peaches known as organic sweet dream peaches which have been pureed.

UNSPSC 50395467 Organic sweet dream peach purees is a Commodity code that does not appear in recent state and local procurement activity. The source records show ten opportunities tagged to this code over the past five months, but none of them involve peach purees or any peach product. The opportunities instead cover canned applesauce, fresh produce (apples, berries, vegetables, citrus), dried fruit bars and apple crisps, and shelf-stable food commodities such as proteins, dairy, grains, and canned vegetables. The code's nominal scope — a specific branded or organic variant of a peach product — does not align with the generalized, multi-item food procurement actually being solicited under it by state and local buyers.

Issuing bodies using this code tag include county boards of education (Hancock County, Georgia), county commissions (Gwinnett County, Georgia), state departments (Oregon Department of Corrections, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Illinois Chief Procurement Office, Georgia, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts), school districts (Austin Independent School District, Bridgeport Board of Education), and city purchasing offices (City of Bridgeport, Connecticut). Geographic activity concentrates in Texas, Georgia, Illinois, Oregon, and Connecticut. Representative solicitations include Gwinnett County's IFB for 1,062 cases of shelf-stable food items including peanut butter, jelly, canned proteins, and canned vegetables (due October 19, 2026); the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's IFB for supplemental food and consumables spanning 210 line items of proteins, dairy, frozen specialty foods, fruits, and vegetables across state hospitals and supported living centers (due March 19, 2026, with a potential three-year value of $4.5 million); and Oregon Department of Corrections' ITB for canned applesauce at approximately $21.83 per case (due June 2, 2026). The mismatch between the code's name and actual procurement scope suggests either systematic miscoding or a legacy taxonomy entry that no longer reflects current buying patterns.