UNSPSC 50535446: Dried non GMO sensation pears

The variety of non GMO pears known as non GMO sensation pears 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 50535446 Dried non-GMO sensation pears, a Commodity code, does not reflect the substance of recent state and local procurement activity. The sourcing block contains no opportunities specifically for dried pears or dried fruit products; instead, the records capture broad food service solicitations for school nutrition programs, senior meal services, and institutional food supply contracts where fresh produce, groceries, and prepared meals dominate the active market. When dried pears appear in these procurements at all, they are one line item among thousands within comprehensive food supply contracts, not the primary or distinguishing category being solicited. State and local governments buy food service through school districts, county boards of education, municipal purchasing offices, and regional cooperative arrangements, and the work spans fresh produce, frozen items, dairy, proteins, grains, condiments, and prepared meals—not specialty dried fruit. Issuing bodies include Bridgeport Board of Education (Connecticut), Fairfax County Public Schools (Virginia), Savannah-Chatham County Public School System (Georgia), Bulloch County Board of Education (Georgia), Douglas County School System (Georgia), Meriden Public Schools (Connecticut), Pascagoula-Gautier School District (Mississippi), Hancock County Board of Education (Georgia), Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (Florida), the City of Dallas (Texas), the State of Georgia, and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The code shows minimal relevance to actual procurement patterns and warrants scrutiny before pursuing opportunities tagged under it.

Recent solicitations span elementary and secondary school food service, senior meal preparation and delivery, and state institutional food supply. Representative opportunities include the Fairfax County Public Schools Master Grocery K-12 contract (IFB 2000004323, due April 27, 2026) covering delivery to 45 schools and seven distribution kitchens across a one-year term with renewal options; the Meriden Public Schools commercial groceries and USDA Foods procurement (RFP 02641, due February 25, 2026) valued at approximately $3.1 million for the 2026-2027 school year across 14 delivery locations; the Savannah-Chatham County Public School System fresh produce bid (Bid 26-34, due April 23, 2026) for 72 produce line items across 60 school sites; the Douglas County School System food supply and distribution RFP (RFP 26-003, due February 18, 2026) supporting approximately 32,000 meals daily with estimated annual spend around $9 million; the Texas Health and Human Services Commission food and consumable products IFB for the El Paso State Supported Living Center (IFB HHS0017449, due July 13, 2026) with prior-period value of $1.5 million; and the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners senior meal preparation and delivery ITB (ITB 26-00289, due June 25, 2026) with an estimated three-year contract value of $17.8 million. Activity concentrates in Georgia, Texas, Florida, Connecticut, and Virginia, with school nutrition programs and state institutional food service as the dominant use cases. The code itself appears to be a taxonomy mislabeling issue rather than an active procurement category.