UNSPSC 50563901: Non GMO baboon lemon purees

The variety of non GMO lemons known as non GMO baboon lemons which have been pureed

UNSPSC 50563901 Non GMO baboon lemon purees is a Commodity code that sees little relevant recent state and local procurement activity. The code's nominal scope does not align with the food service and agricultural commodity purchases actually being solicited by state and local agencies over the past several months. Recent opportunities tagged under this code or related food categories instead focus on shelf-stable processed foods (canned proteins, rice, pasta, sauces, soups), fresh produce (apples, berries, cruciferous vegetables, citrus, leafy greens), canned applesauce, dried fruit bars, and bulk food service items for correctional facilities, state-supported living centers, school nutrition programs, and county social services. No bidding activity specifically for non-GMO baboon lemon purees or comparable specialty puree products appears in the recent-opportunities record.

Issuing bodies across recent solicitations include state correctional and health departments (Oregon Department of Corrections, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Illinois Veterans Home system), county boards of education (Hancock County Board of Education in Georgia, Austin Independent School District in Texas, City of Bridgeport Board of Education in Connecticut), county social-services departments (Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners in Georgia), and state-level agricultural or general procurement divisions (State of Georgia, State of Illinois Chief Procurement Office, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts). Geographic activity concentrates in Texas, Georgia, Oregon, Illinois, and Connecticut, with solicitations posted between May and October 2026 using RFP, RFQ, IFB, and ITB notice types. Award sizes vary from approximately $41,530 (Oregon applesauce ITBs) to $4.5 million over three years (Texas HHSC supplemental food and consumables). The mismatch between the code's stated commodity and the actual food-service and agricultural goods being procured suggests either a taxonomy misclassification by the issuing bodies or that the code itself has limited application in current state and local practice.