UNSPSC 50533449: Dried non GMO kyoho grapes

The variety of non GMO table grapes known as non GMO kyoho grapes that have been dried for preservation. This means that they are produced without the use of methods that genetically modify organisms by means that are not possible under natural conditions. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macro-encapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology).

Traditional methods of breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture are considered to be non-GMO.

UNSPSC 50533449 Dried non-GMO kyoho grapes (Commodity) does not align with the recent state and local procurement activity tagged under this code. The sourced opportunities span school nutrition programs, senior meal services, fresh produce procurement, and institutional food service — none of which involve dried kyoho grapes as a line item or primary focus. The Commodity code itself names a specific dried-fruit product, yet the tagged solicitations cover broad grocery, fresh produce, and prepared-meal categories where such a specialized item would represent one line among hundreds. The code shows no distinct or recurring activity reflecting the actual commodity it names.

The six recent opportunities posted between April and June 2026 originate from school districts (Bridgeport Board of Education in Connecticut, Hancock County Board of Education in Georgia, Pascagoula-Gautier School District in Mississippi), state agencies (Texas Health and Human Services Commission, State of Georgia), and a county board of commissioners (Hillsborough County, Florida). Issuing bodies are pursuing nutrition services across breakfast and lunch programs, senior congregate and home-delivered meal services, and bulk fresh produce for school food service — work types that diverge substantially from procurement of a single dried specialty fruit. Geographic spread includes Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida, but the mismatch between code scope and actual procurement content suggests the Commodity code is either misapplied in the source data or represents dormant procurement activity in state and local markets.