JurnalPost.com — The mass food poisoning incident during the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) program in Karo Regency, North Sumatra, provides a critical lesson not only for the local government but also for the North Sumatra Provincial Government and the central government.
A program designed to improve the nutritional intake of school children has instead exposed serious risks when governance, food storage, oversight, and accountability mechanisms fail to function as intended.
One victim who illustrates the severity of the incident is Febiola Purba, a student at SMA Bersama Berastagi. Following the incident on August 13, 2026, her health reportedly has not fully recovered. She has had to undergo medical treatment and continues to face various health complications.
Before the incident, Febiola was a teenager living a normal school life like any other student. She studied, interacted with her friends, and enjoyed the lunch provided through the MBG program.
However, on August 13, 2026, the situation changed.
Hundreds of students from five schools in Berastagi District, Karo Regency, experienced nausea and various health complaints after consuming food from the program. Data circulating indicates the number of victims ranges from 353 to 361. Some students required intensive care, while others were reported to have been in serious condition.
This case has opened up a larger issue regarding food safety in the implementation of the MBG program.
The National Nutrition Agency (BGN) reported issues in the food storage process. Food ingredients, specifically fish that should have been kept in cold storage, were reportedly left at room temperature for hours before being processed.
Laboratory tests on food samples and the victims' vomit also identified several bacteria capable of causing health issues, namely Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, and Escherichia coli.
The Karo Berastagi Sempajaya Nutrition Fulfillment Service Unit (SPPG), which operates under the Manunggal Kartika Jaya Foundation, was subsequently subjected to administrative action. The facility's operations were temporarily suspended before being permanently closed by the BGN's decision.
However, closing the kitchen does not immediately resolve the issue.
For the victims' families, the more pressing question is who is responsible for medical expenses, long-term health impacts, and the physical and psychological harm suffered by the students.
Rules Exist, but Accountability Remains Questionable
The legal process for the case began moving when the Karo District Attorney's Office received a Notice of Commencement of Investigation (SPDP) from the Karo Police on August 20, 2026.
The case potentially intersects with several legal provisions, ranging from consumer protection and food safety to criminal statutes if elements of negligence or legal violations are found.
However, the law enforcement process is a concern for the victims' families because identifying the responsible parties requires a lengthy process.
Several parents of the victims have chosen to take legal action. Approximately 60 parents visited the Tanah Karo Police to file an official report. Beyond criminal proceedings, there are plans to pursue civil lawsuits and even considerations for a citizen lawsuit mechanism.
The parties potentially held accountable include not only the SPPG management but also the managing foundation and government agencies tasked with regulating and overseeing the MBG program.
The issue becomes interesting from a consumer law perspective.
MBG student recipients are essentially in a very weak position. They do not determine who provides the food, do not choose the ingredients used, do not know how the food is stored, and lack the ability to test whether the food is safe for consumption.
That is why legal protection for beneficiaries is crucial.
Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection, in principle, grants consumers the right to safety, comfort, and security when using goods or services.
Consumer status does not solely depend on the existence of a direct payment transaction. The fact that food is provided for free through a government program does not automatically eliminate the need for protection for those consuming it.
If students are positioned as consumers and the kitchen management as a provider of goods or services, the concept of reversed burden of proofarises.
This means that in certain contexts, the provider must be able to demonstrate that the product provided met safety standards and that the resulting harm was not caused by their error or negligence.
Who is Responsible?
The complexity of the MBG program makes the issue of accountability more than a simple relationship between seller and buyer.
There are at least three main elements in its implementation.
First, the National Nutrition Agency as the policymaker and the body with coordination and oversight functions. Second, the foundation or SPPG management that carries out the technical activities of procurement, storage, processing, and distribution of food. Third, the students as beneficiaries.
When poisoning occurs due to food ingredients not stored according to standards, the legal question becomes critical: is the issue solely the negligence of the kitchen operator, or is there also a failure in the oversight system?
That question cannot be answered simply by closing the kitchen.
BGN Regulation Number 4 of 2026 has regulated several aspects related to food safety, including food storage, temperature control, and the obligation for facilities to obtain a Hygiene and Sanitation Feasibility Certificate.
In the context of the Karo case, the status of the SPPG's compliance with all these requirements at the time of the incident is essential to examine.
If there were requirements that had not been met but the facility continued to operate, the issue is no longer limited to technical errors in the kitchen. It also raises questions about the effectiveness of the verification and oversight process.
So far, government actions have mostly been in the administrative realm, such as removing the head of the SPPG, stopping operations, sealing the facility, and revoking permits.
Such steps are important to prevent similar incidents from recurring at the same facility.
However, administrative sanctions have limitations.
Closing a kitchen can stop a food provider's activities, but it does not automatically restore the victims' health. Revoking a permit does not immediately pay for hospital bills or provide compensation for long-term health impacts.
This is where the victim recovery mechanism becomes vital.
Tanah Karo is Not an Isolated Case
The incident in Karo Regency should not be viewed as a singular event.
Monitoring by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia, North Sumatra Representative, noted several poisoning cases related to the implementation of the MBG program in the North Sumatra region throughout 2026. The number of students affected by these various incidents reached hundreds.
At the national level, reports of health issues following the consumption of MBG food have also emerged in various regions.
If this pattern continues to repeat, the problem can no longer be considered an individual error of a single kitchen.
The government needs to view it as a governance issue.
Each poisoning incident generally follows a similar pattern: victims receive treatment, the kitchen is inspected or shut down, the government conducts an evaluation, while families wait for certainty regarding responsibility and funding.
Criminal proceedings take time.
Civil lawsuit processes are also not simple. Victims must prepare evidence, legal representation, time, and money to obtain compensation.
Yet, students who experience poisoning need recovery from the very first day.
Therefore, the main issue that must be improved is not just how the government punishes the problematic kitchen, but how the state ensures that victims do not bear the consequences of the program's failure on their own.
An Automatic Compensation Scheme is Needed
The government has at least two options in dealing with cases like this.
The first option is to maintain a case-by-case approach. Each incident is handled individually, victims file reports, investigations are conducted, and then families wait for the legal process to obtain accountability.
This model places a heavy burden on the victims.
Every family must start the struggle from scratch when a new incident occurs.
The second option is to build an automatic compensation mechanism for victims of MBG program poisoning.
In this scheme, if an incident has been officially determined to be a poisoning incident related to the implementation of the MBG, the government can immediately activate medical funding and recovery guarantees for the victims.
Such a scheme should at least cover the costs of examinations, hospitalization, medication, follow-up check-ups, rehabilitation if necessary, and a compensation mechanism if long-term health impacts are found.
Providing assistance to victims should not have to wait for the completion of criminal proceedings.
Determining who is ultimately legally responsible can still be processed through investigation and court. However, the medical needs of students cannot wait months until the entire process is finished.
This is precisely where the state must be present.
The MBG is a program designed by the government and run for the public interest. Therefore, when there is a failure in the service chain that causes the public to suffer losses, there must also be a clear and easily accessible recovery system.
The safety of beneficiaries is not sufficiently protected by standards on paper.
Oversight of food storage, kitchen inspections, hygiene certification, reporting systems, and compensation mechanisms must truly function in the field.
The event in Tanah Karo should be a momentum for a comprehensive evaluation.
The free meal program should help children grow healthier, not force families to spend large amounts of money to treat the effects of the food they received.
For the hundreds of affected students, including those still undergoing recovery, administrative evaluation alone is not enough.
They need a guarantee that their health is restored, that the costs incurred are not charged to their families, and that those who were negligent are truly held accountable.
Because in the end, the success of the Free Nutritious Meal program is not measured only by how many millions of portions are successfully distributed every day.
A much more fundamental measure is whether every meal that reaches a student's table is truly safe for consumption.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response