Concerns about food poisoning arose after Taipei City implemented free nutritious lunches, and lawmakers and experts questioned the Education Bureau’s tone and notification threshold
Quick Look
- Taipei City’s public and private primary and secondary schools implemented free nutritious lunches in the new semester, but incidents of students becoming ill after eating have occurred one after another.
- Taipei City Councilor Chien Shupei and Taiwan Artificial Intelligence Laboratory founder Du Yijin questioned the Education Bureau’s response to the “unfounded revelations” and “false accusations that have overturned”.
- They pointed out that the threshold for food safety notifications was too high and the investigation was insufficient.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
Taipei City’s public and private primary and secondary schools have implemented a free nutritious lunch policy in the new semester. However, incidents of students becoming ill after eating have continued to occur, raising concerns among parents and society about food safety.
Taipei City's public and private primary and secondary schools have implemented free nutritious lunches this semester. Not long after students started to have food poisoning or physical discomfort in different schools, the Taipei City Government criticized the Taipei City Councilor Chien Shupei who exposed the information for spreading rumors. Du Yijin, the founder of Taiwan Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, questioned that the children reported feeling unwell after eating, but the Education Bureau set the tone with "unfounded revelations" and "false accusations have been overturned." He also bluntly said that from "different symptoms" to "a small number of people," was the city government explaining the investigation or refuting concerns? At the same time, it was also emphasized that the most dangerous aspect of food safety reporting is setting high reporting thresholds and failing to fulfill investigation responsibilities.
Du Yijin posted on Facebook that from "no food poisoning" to "only 9 people feeling sick", how high is the threshold for food safety in Taipei? The child reported feeling unwell after lunch, and the government should provide investigation and evidence. However, in its statement on the Jinhua Junior High School incident, the Taipei City Education Bureau set the tone by citing "unfounded revelations" and "false accusations have been overturned."
Please read on...
Du Yijin said that now there are reports of 9 more students suffering from gastrointestinal discomfort in Minzu Elementary School. According to Jiang Wanan, "only 9 students out of 700 are feeling sick" have appeared in the news. From "different symptoms" to "a small number of people", is the city government explaining the investigation or refuting doubts?
Du Yijin emphasized that the definition of the Food and Drug Administration does not require a large number of students to have vomiting and diarrhea at the same time: "more than 2 people" who ingest the same food and develop similar symptoms meet one of the definitions; single person poisoning under specific conditions, and epidemiological investigations infer that it is related to food, can also be identified.
When the first incident occurred, the Education Bureau stated that Jinhua Junior High School received a report from a student on September 11 that he had diarrhea on September 4. After investigation, it was found that two other people in the same class were unwell, but "the symptoms were different." There were no related reports in other classes, so food poisoning was basically ruled out. Du Yijin bluntly said that the problem is here: different symptoms are not the most important, but whether the three people eat the same meal is the key.
The Food and Drug Administration explains that symptoms and severity will be affected by personal health, the cause of the disease and food intake, and not all symptoms will appear at the same time. "Symptoms are different" is not enough for the public to understand the basis for exclusion.
Du Yijin also pointed out that the date of the incident was seven days apart from the date when the school claimed to have first received the report. This cannot directly prove that the school already knew about it but delayed it, nor can it directly conclude that all the samples were invalid; but it also requires the city government to disclose the complete timeline: when did the abnormality become known? When will it be reported? Are the food samples still there? What specimens were collected? Who rules out food poisoning based on what data?
News from ethnic minority schools highlights this problem. The Education Bureau stated that a total of 716 teachers and students ate nutritious lunches on September 24, and 9 students in the same second-grade class began to suffer from gastrointestinal discomfort, including vegetarian students. After receiving the report on the 25th, the school completed the report to the school security and health bureau, and cooperated with the sample collection and epidemic investigation.
Du Yijin bluntly said that reporting, sampling, and investigation are the proper handling and deserve recognition; "only 9 people" should not be the main reason to appease society. Not everyone will take the initiative to report their discomfort. Du Yijin also emphasized that the most dangerous thing about food safety reporting is setting a high threshold for reporting, failing to fulfill investigation responsibilities, and setting the tone with "unfounded revelations" and "false accusations."
What to Watch
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The Taipei City Education Bureau will release a more complete investigation timeline and inspection results
Likely · Within weeks
Parent groups or the Supervisory Yuan may intervene to investigate the food safety supervision mechanism for nutritious lunches
Possible · Within months
Open Questions
- When did the Education Bureau first learn of the student's discomfort?
- Have all relevant specimen sampling and submissions been completed?
- Are the food samples still being stored?
- Is the basis for excluding food poisoning fully disclosed?





