Criticism of the Free Nutritious Meal Program: Stunting Solution or New Problem?

Legal Literacy Indonesia is currently facing serious problems with malnutrition and stunting. According to the Indonesian Nutritional Status Survey (SSGI), the prevalence of stunting in children under five has indeed decreased from 24.4% in 2021 to around 21.6% in 2023. Despite this decrease, the figure is still far from the ideal target and indicates that almost one in five toddlers in Indonesia experience growth disorders due to malnutrition. Stunting is also seen as a problem of human development and national competitiveness. To respond to this problem, the elected President of the Republic of Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto, has echoed the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) program since his campaign to overcome the stunting problem. In response to this challenge, the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) program was launched. The funds allocated for this program reach trillions of rupiah to reach millions of beneficiaries, ranging from students, pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, to toddlers. However, the MBG program, which is expected to be a solution to the nutritional crisis in Indonesia, faces various serious challenges. Since its launch, this program has been marred by a number of problems. As of September 2025, combined data from various agencies such as the National Nutrition Agency, the Ministry of Health, and BPOM recorded that more than 5,000 students experienced food poisoning due to MBG consumption. The government itself admits that there are weaknesses in the supervision of public kitchen operations, food storage, and hygiene standards as some of the main causes. This data raises a big question: will MBG go as expected or will it become a chaotic program that makes things worse? Furthermore, from the budget side, the allocation of trillions of rupiah for MBG has the potential to be inefficient. In the field, the results are often only makeshift menus. Even in some areas, the MBG menu is actually fast food (junk food) which is far from nutritional standards, with food ingredients whose quality is not guaranteed and a real risk of poisoning. Instead of building a long-term nutritional foundation through education, healthy food subsidies, and improved health services, the state is draining its coffers for a giant project that is weak in terms of management. MBG shows the face of a centralized and hasty policy, with minimal transparent audits from the government, potentially causing more problems in the future. Instead of continuing the uneven and demonstrably problematic Free Nutritious Meal program, the state should consider more effective alternatives. One alternative is to provide special vouchers that can only be exchanged for nutritious foods such as rice, eggs, milk, vegetables, fish, or meat. This system would be much more flexible and could minimize the risk of poisoning, misdirection, and inefficiency. In addition, the voucher system can reach a wider audience, not only children but also other family members. This mechanism also directly encourages economic turnover in local markets, while ensuring that funds are used only for nutritional needs.