730 MBG Victims: Who Should Be Held Responsible?

On 1 September 2026, hundreds of Islamic boarding school students and schoolchildren in Tanggulangin District, Sidoarjo, experienced health problems after consuming Free Nutritious Meals (Makan Bergizi Gratis/MBG) provided by the Kalitengah SPPG. As of 3 September, the number of victims had reached 730 people, based on data from the Sidoarjo Regency Health Office.

According to the National Nutrition Agency (Badan Gizi Nasional/BGN), an initial investigation identified problems with the recording of cooking times and consumption deadlines. Food that had actually been cooked at approximately 05:00 Western Indonesian Time (WIB) and should have been consumed before 09:00 WIB was reportedly labelled as though it had been cooked at 08:00 WIB, with a consumption deadline of 10:00 WIB. The food was then only dispatched at approximately 11:30–11:40 WIB and consumed after 12:00 WIB. The BGN described this condition as “deliberate negligence”.

The BGN subsequently suspended the SPPG’s operations for 30 days and dismissed the head of the SPPG. Meanwhile, whether a criminal offence had occurred was left to law enforcement authorities to determine.

Rules Are in Place; Implementation Needs to Be Examined

The Sidoarjo case demonstrates that the MBG issue is not simply a matter of there being no applicable rules. The Food Law (UU Pangan) and regulations concerning food safety already require food in circulation to meet safety, quality, and nutritional standards. The Government also has specific regulations governing MBG, including monitoring, supervision, evaluation, and the handling of suspected food poisoning.

Moreover, Presidential Regulation No. 115 of 2025 specifically regulates the measures to be taken in the event of suspected food poisoning. SPPGs are required to immediately report the incident, treat the victims, stop the distribution of food suspected of being the source of the problem, retain samples for examination, and coordinate with healthcare facilities and health offices.

Therefore, the question is no longer “does the Government already have rules in place?”, but rather “are those rules actually being implemented and supervised?”

Comprehensive rules on paper will have little practical significance if they are not implemented in the field. If SOP violations continue to occur, the matter that needs to be examined is not only the party committing the violation, but also how the supervisory system operates.

Responsibility Does Not End in the Kitchen

Liability in this case may at least be considered from three perspectives: criminal, civil, and administrative.

First, criminal liability. If it is established that negligence in preparing or distributing food caused another person to become ill, the provisions of the National Criminal Code (KUHP Nasional) concerning negligence may be relevant. However, it must first be established that there was negligence, that victims suffered loss or health impairment, and that there was a causal connection between such negligence and the condition suffered by the victims.

The alleged alteration of the label also requires specific examination. The Food Law prohibits the provision of false or misleading information on food labels. If it is subsequently established that the cooking time was deliberately altered to make food that had already exceeded the safe consumption limit appear still fit for consumption, the matter could become more serious than merely an SOP violation. However, it must still be established who made, knew of, or approved the alteration.

Second, civil liability. In principle, victims may seek compensation if fault, loss, and a causal connection between the conduct in question and the loss suffered are established. Such losses may include medical expenses and other losses that can be duly substantiated.

Third, administrative liability. The 30-day suspension of the SPPG’s operations and the dismissal of the head of the SPPG constitute forms of administrative sanctions. However, such measures do not automatically resolve potential criminal liability or the losses suffered by the victims.

What About the BGN?

Liability must also be considered in light of the BGN’s role as the body responsible for the implementation and supervision of MBG. This does not mean that every incident at an SPPG is automatically attributable to the BGN. However, the BGN has the authority to monitor, supervise, control, and evaluate the implementation of MBG. Accordingly, the effectiveness of such supervision should be examined when food safety violations occur.

This is increasingly important because the BGN has stated that approximately 80–90 percent of health incidents evaluated internally were related to non-compliance with SOPs. If this figure indicates a recurring pattern, the evaluation should not stop at the SPPG that committed the violation. The mechanisms intended to ensure compliance with SOPs should also be examined.

The East Java Provincial Government is itself reported to be covering the medical expenses of the victims. This measure is important to ensure that victims receive prompt medical treatment. However, the Government’s payment of medical expenses does not automatically extinguish the liability of any party proven to have caused the loss. If it is subsequently established that a particular party bears responsibility, the issue of compensation for the losses may still be considered in accordance with the applicable legal basis.

The Problem Is Not Only in the Kitchen

The Sidoarjo case should not end with the question of who was negligent in the kitchen.

If SOP violations, label manipulation, or the distribution of food beyond the safe consumption limit are established, the responsible parties must of course be dealt with in accordance with their respective roles. However, with 730 victims, the issue has also raised a broader question: how effective is the MBG supervisory system?

MBG is a Government programme concerning the basic needs of the public. Therefore, its success cannot be measured solely by how many meals are successfully distributed. An equally important measure is whether those meals are safe when they reach the recipients.

The response to this case should not result merely in a change of the SPPG head. What needs to be improved is the system that should have prevented an incident like this from occurring in the first place.