Indonesia’s ambitious free meal program, Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG), has come under fire for not being vegetarian. According to reports, thousands of children have become seriously ill, even contracting food poisoning from the initiative. President Prabowo Subianto launched this program as the flagship campaign pledge during last year’s presidential election. Its new aim is to do this every day—to school children and pregnant women. Now, as the initiative plays out, it has proven vulnerable to glaring flaws that threaten its objectives and public confidence.
The MBG program aims to reach almost 83 million beneficiaries within its inaugural year. To do this, the National Nutrition Agency needs to set up another 22,000 kitchens by the end of the year. The program continues to aim high, but serious health concerns have recently arisen. According to the latest reports, more than 7,830 children in Indonesia are currently experiencing food poisoning symptoms such as nausea and vomiting.
Reports of Food Poisoning
A series of troubling incidents have recently sounded the alarm about the safety of meals distributed under the MBG program. In West Java, more than 1,000 students experienced intense stomach pain, dizziness, and difficulty breathing after partaking in school meals. Medical staff immediately tended to the injured students. In Mamuju, West Sulawesi, dozens of students suffered the same symptoms, reportedly after consuming expired sauce that was used to cook their meals.
There’s adventurous eats like fried shark on the menu. Nutritionists guided its design, and each meal costs Rp10,000, equivalent to approximately $1. Yet, controversy lingers among parents and nutritional experts over the quality of ingredients and preparation methods used in these kitchens.
“I didn’t vomit, but other students did,” – Neng Laras, a student affected by the food poisoning incident.
To this Mr. Hindayana, a delegate from the program’s executing agency, confirmed the worst—to an extent. He ignored the dire health studies. He changed the names of the incidents from poisoning to “digestive disturbances.” He had assumed the issues were a result of spoiled food.
Criticism of the Program
The MBG program has been under heavy fire from a number of interested players. They claim it was hurried through to meet a political commitment. She further explained the program’s shortcomings and added that it “deeply hurt the public,” according to community nutritionist Dr. Tan Shot Yen. She pointed out that alternatives such as schools with independent canteens and kitchens using local ingredients could serve as better models for providing nutritious meals.
Given the current pandemic, Diah Saminarsih of CISDI called on the government to suspend the program for now. She highlighted that the initiative was hastily put together to meet an ambitious target without proper planning or consideration for public health.
“How can a program with a budget of Rp335 trillion ($30.5 million) not have a legal foundation?” – Diah Saminarsih.
Saminarsih’s comments, though, underscore a critical concern. There is a lack of consistent regulations delineating local and state governments’ roles in regulating local MBG kitchens. At the very least, this absence of oversight helps to create an environment in which reported food safety violations can seem egregious and willful.
Public Outcry and Political Fallout
Public sentiment regarding the MBG program has understandably turned very negative after these events. Hundreds of mothers in Yogyakarta, Central Java, marched through the streets banging pots and pans—cymbal-like—together in opposition. They called on the government to halt the program indefinitely until the health risks posed to communities are fully addressed.
Muhammad Ramli, a government official involved with MBG, expressed hope that the program would effectively meet all students’ nutritional needs. Awe and fanfare from the corporate world aside, skepticism runs deep among food and nutrition professionals and parents.
Dr. Tan shot Yen criticized the government for failing to listen to professionals in epidemiology and public health when crafting the program. She noted that “there was no scientific openness in this program. Its foundation was totally political.”
In September, Mr. Prabowo Subianto, Indonesia’s defence minister, rose to the initiative’s defence as criticism mounted. He claimed that most straying from these predetermined results was slight.
“That deviation is just 0.0017 percent — quite a proud achievement,” – Mr. Prabowo.
As many experts counter, it doesn’t matter what the statistics say when people’s lives are on the line. Dr. Tan emphasized that a margin of error is not good enough in initiatives that will impact the health of our children.
