MBG – the Free Nutritious Meals programme – remains a hot topic in Indonesia. There always seems to be a new decision or development regarding the initiative promoted by President Prabowo and Vice‑President Gibran. Yet since its official launch on 6 January 2025, numerous problems have emerged that harm pupils, parents and teachers.

In the past week, MBG has again dominated headlines after a spate of mass food‑poisoning cases. One of the most talked‑about incidents occurred in Wonogiri, where about 110 students experienced symptoms after eating MBG meals. Soon after, similar cases were reported in Bandar Lampung, adding to a growing list of affected regions. These outbreaks have heightened public anxiety, particularly because earlier incidents in Cianjur, Bogor and Sragen had already injured hundreds of students.

Food Poisoning and Food Safety

Food‑poisoning cases have become frequent since MBG’s rollout. According to the Food and Drug Supervisory Agency (BPOM), as of 12 May 2025 there were 17 extraordinary incidents across 10 provinces. Most were due to contaminated raw ingredients, meals cooked early and then delivered late, and poor hygiene in kitchens or suppliers.

In August, 196 students and teachers in Sragen suffered suspected poisoning after eating MBG. The mass poisoning affected pupils and teachers at SDN 4 Gemolong and SMPN 3 Gemolong.

In September, apart from Wonogiri, 105 students in Klaten reported stomach aches, vomiting and diarrhoea after eating MBG meals. The kitchen of the Nutrition Fulfilment Service Unit (SPPG) was found to have half‑cooked the food in stages.

Similar cases were then discovered in Banggai Islands, Garut and Sumbawa.

These continuing cases raise concerns for students’ health. Parental and public trust in the programme is being eroded.

Menu Quality and Mismatched Taste and Quantity

Pupils often criticise MBG meals: meat, chicken and other dishes are undercooked, and vegetables served are unfit to eat. Some schools suspect poor‑quality ingredients. Technical errors include unsanitary ingredients, incorrect cooking and storage temperatures, and long distribution times.

Burden on Teachers, Schools and Canteens

It’s not just pupils who suffer; MBG affects the school ecosystem. Teachers report additional duties distributing and supervising MBG, cutting into their teaching time.

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) also notes a decline in school canteen earnings since MBG began and the displacement of canteen businesses. Interviews show canteen operators losing revenue and being excluded from the programme.

MBG Circular Letter

Beyond repeated food‑poisoning incidents, the public was shocked by a viral letter from a school. The letter required parents to sign a statement promising not to sue the school or programme organisers if their child is poisoned by MBG food. What might seem like routine administration struck the public as an admission that the programme is risky and that organisers want to wash their hands of responsibility.

At MTsN 2 Brebes, parents were asked to sign or reject the programme; if they agreed, they had to accept risks such as digestive disorders, allergic reactions or food poisoning. They also had to agree to pay IDR 80,000 if lunchboxes were lost or damaged.

Online reactions were fierce. Many called the letter a “legal shield” that disrespects parents’ rights. Others highlighted the irony of a programme meant to nourish children that instead asks parents to brace for poisoning. Posts about the letter quickly went viral, with thousands of angry, sarcastic and disappointed comments.

Some netizens said the letter proves that the government and schools are unprepared and only chasing publicity, shifting risk to parents. Overall, public opinion agrees the letter isn’t a solution but proof of risk‑management failure in a major programme affecting children’s lives.

In response, the National Nutrition Agency (BGN) issued an official statement, particularly addressing the MTsN 2 Brebes letter. Regional coordinator Arya Dewa Nugroho said the information circulating was false and that they would not shirk responsibility in cases of poisoning. He clarified that the widely circulated letter was not a waiver of responsibility but a questionnaire to record students’ health conditions and allergies.

BGN insisted they would not avoid accountability. The school and the Nutrition Fulfilment Service at MTsN 2 Brebes withdrew the questionnaire to prevent further misunderstanding, and BGN stressed that MBG must adhere to operating standards, especially food safety.

Discovery of Pork Oil in MBG Trays

Another headline‑making scandal centred on lab results from China showing pork oil used in producing the food trays for MBG. The allegation arose after supplier Wafa Riansah from the PW RMI NU Jakarta took a sample of oil from a tray factory to the Shanghai Weipu Testing Technology Group. The lab report found processed pork fat (triglycerides) along with other substances such as processed base oil, synthetic esters and chlorinated paraffin. Wafa said he had planned to import the trays but backed out after receiving the results.

BGN head Dadan Hindayana acknowledged oil is used in tray production but said it is solely for stamping machines, not for coating trays. He insisted the oil should not come into direct contact with food. Nonetheless, as of mid‑September, the government had yet to publish official test results, despite pressure from parliament members, religious organisations and the public.

Investigations by Indonesia Business Post reported that a factory in Chaoshan, eastern Guangdong, allegedly imports these trays for MBG, counterfeiting “Made in Indonesia” labels and the SNI (Indonesian National Standard) logo. BPOM confirmed that samples have been tested but said results cannot yet be released due to coordination procedures.

Media Coverage

Big‑data monitoring tool Newstensity recorded around 8,852 media articles mentioning MBG from 9–18 September 2025. Coverage increased sharply around 14–18 September, especially after reports of poisoning and the viral letter.

The highest spike came on 17 September, with about 1,100 articles in a single day. This reflected intensified scrutiny and public debate on MBG’s food safety, particularly after the pork‑oil tray issue gained traction.

Sentiment analysis shows media and public conversations remain 72% positive (about 6,351 posts) and 26% negative (about 2,290 posts). The positive tone is driven by government narratives emphasising MBG’s benefits and successful distribution, while negative sentiment focuses on food poisoning, the parental letter and the pork‑oil tray scandal. The relatively high negative percentage signals that these issues could erode public support if not addressed seriously.

The coverage map shows MBG news is not confined to the political centre but spreads across the country. Java is the epicentre due to its role as a political and economic hub with dense school populations. High‑intensity regions outside Java include Papua and East Kalimantan, while Sumatra’s coverage is moderate.

Social‑Media Uproar

On social media, Socindex recorded 4,505 conversations about MBG from 9–18 September 2025, reaching roughly 6 million users and involving 3,300 authors.

The conversation timeline fluctuated significantly: interaction was high on 9 September (~19,000), plunged near zero on 10 September, then climbed again on 11–12 September. It surged dramatically around 16 September – over 55,000 interactions – when the viral letter sparked criticism.

Sentiment analysis shows positive tweets dominate, exceeding 350 on 18 September. Positive sentiment comes from official supporters and rational discussions, while negative sentiment peaks on 16 and 18 September. Neutral sentiment remains stable.
Emotion analysis reveals anticipation (hope/expectation) as the dominant emotion, followed by anger.

A breakdown of user types shows most posts come from human accounts (~1,800 tweets), followed by cyborg accounts (~1,500) and pure bots (~400). This mix explains why certain framing – especially positive – dominates the timeline.

Is MBG Truly Beneficial?

From its inception, MBG has presented a stark contrast. On the one hand, it is touted as a breakthrough to address child nutrition; on the other, it is battered by issues that make the public question its merit. Food‑poisoning cases and allegations of pork‑oil trays have eroded optimism. Government‑driven positive narratives persist, but the controversies reveal a gap between grand plans and implementation.
At this point, can the programme truly operate without harming those it is meant to help? Can the government answer criticism with concrete action, or will public doubt grow to obscure its good intentions?

Writer: Jenna Nadia Rasbi (Jangkara), Ilustrator: Aan K. Riyadi