Indonesia’s flagship free nutritious meals initiative, Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG), launched in early 2025 to fulfill one of President Prabowo Subianto’s campaign promises, is now facing intense scrutiny following a series of mass food poisoning incidents affecting thousands of schoolchildren. Intended to provide free lunch to elementary and junior high school students nationwide, the program has instead exposed serious flaws in planning, execution, and oversight – raising urgent questions about public safety, governance, and political interference in public transparency.
Members of parliament, nutritionists, and civil organizations believe the MBG was implemented hastily, with minimal preparation and without proper umbrella regulation in place. Such regulation is needed, not only because the program needs a proper standard for the food preparation and distribution, but also because, given the scale of the program, a cross-sectoral oversight mechanism is needed. Currently, only the National Nutritional Agency (Badan Gizi Nasional/BGN) is operating the program, while the food distribution and its monitoring is supposed to be under supervision of the ministries of education and health and provincial governments.
The consequences of this rushed rollout have been severe. In late September 2025, more than 9,000 children across West Java, Central Java, and Banten were hospitalized after consuming MBG meals. The largest outbreak occurred in Cipongkor, West Bandung, where over 500 students fell ill in a single day. Investigations revealed that none of the 85 MBG kitchens in the district had passed food safety certification.
Similar cases were reported in Cianjur, Garut, and Tasikmalaya. Many kitchens operated with poor standards, lacked refrigeration, used expired ingredients, and employed untrained staff. In some cases, meals were prepared in private homes or makeshift facilities with no sanitation standards.
The academic review highlights the absence of a centralized monitoring system. There was no real-time data on kitchen conditions, distribution routes, or health outcomes. Reporting was reactive, fragmented, and inconsistent, making it difficult to respond to emergencies or prevent future incidents.
Indonesia’s food safety regulations require all mass meal providers to undergo certification by the Ministry of Health. However, MBG bypassed these safeguards. The Ministry of Health and Indonesian Food and Drug Authority were not consulted on menu design, nutrition standards, or hygiene protocols. As a result, MBG operated without a coherent regulatory framework, leaving critical gaps in food safety, logistics, and accountability.
Another concern raised in the analysis is the politicization of MBG. The program’s rollout was closely tied to campaign narratives, and its execution involved actors affiliated with political parties and security institutions. Several MBG contracts were awarded to foundations with links to retired military officers and partisan networks, raising concerns about conflict of interest and the diversion of public funds.
Despite this, the national budget for the program will be increased up to 300 trillion Indonesian rupiah (about $18 billion) for 2026. It will be inserted through the national education budget, with significant allocations diverted from teacher training, school infrastructure, and curriculum development. This reallocation was done without parliamentary debate, undermining the integrity of Indonesia’s education policy.
Countries such as India and Brazil have long-standing school meal programs supported by centralized kitchens, community monitoring, and strict safety audits. India’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme, for example, operates through a network of certified kitchens, engages local communities in oversight, and includes nutrition education as part of the curriculum. The program has been credited with improving school attendance, reducing child malnutrition, and supporting rural economies.
Even with these precedents, Indonesia’s MBG program failed to adopt similar safeguards. The academic review emphasizes that there was no attempt to learn from the experiences of India, Brazil, or Japan. The policy analysis stated that the program has significant potential to improve child nutrition and the local economy, but it is being implemented without a strong regulatory framework, with minimal technical guidelines, or a clear monitoring and evaluation system. Furthermore, the massive use of ultra-processed foods and the neglect of local foods are also major problems.
A study by Monash University Indonesia recommended that Indonesia urgently use decentralized planning, community participation, and grievance redress mechanisms. They argue that adapting these elements to the Indonesian context could significantly improve the safety, efficiency, and impact of MBG.
Recommendations for Reform
In light of the findings, our academic team proposes a series of corrective measures to address the systemic failures of MBG.
These include the temporary suspension of MBG. The program should be paused until minimum safety and governance standards are met. This includes certifying all kitchens before they can start, training staff, and establishing clear protocols for food preparation and distribution.
The establishment of a national oversight body is important. A cross-sectoral agency involving the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and Culture, Food and Drug Monitoring Agency, provincial government and civil society organizations should be created to oversee MBG implementation.
Next, mandatory food safety certification is critical. All MBG kitchens must pass MOH certification before operation. Regular inspections and audits should be conducted to ensure compliance.
There needs to be a clear and one point monitoring system. A centralized dashboard should be developed to track kitchen conditions, delivery routes, and health incidents in real time. This system should be accessible to the public and include mechanisms for reporting complaints from the public, including children
Furthermore, local communities should be involved in menu planning, distribution, and feedback. This includes students, parents, teachers, and school administrators who can provide valuable insights and ensure accountability.
And finally, the government should revisit the funding structure of MBG, restore education allocations, and ensure that future programs are designed with evidence-based planning and stakeholder consultation.
A Turning Point for Public Policy
The MBG crisis represents more than a failure of a single program – it is a reflection of deeper issues in Indonesia’s public policy landscape. The prioritization of political visibility over institutional capacity, the erosion of regulatory safeguards, and the marginalization of expert input have created conditions ripe for failure.
The academic review concludes that while school meals are a vital social protection tool, they must be implemented with care, transparency, and accountability. Without these safeguards, programs like MBG risk harming the very children they are meant to support.
As public pressure intensifies, the government appears to be continuing the program while downplaying concerns and promoting counter-narratives to address perceived shortcomings. For now, thousands of children and their families are left questioning the safety of a meal that was meant to nourish, not harm. The challenge ahead is not just technical — it is moral, political, and deeply urgent.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.