The fireworks spark for New Year’s 2025 seemed to also celebrate the launch of the Free Nutritious Meals (FNM) program by the Indonesian government, which was first implemented on January 6, 2025. [1] This program was implemented as part of a political promise made during the 2024 presidential election campaign, which was to provide free nutritious meals in schools to reduce stunting rates and support learning. The program has a grand ambition to target 82 million beneficiaries in its first year of implementation. [2] The Indonesian government argues that the FNM program is a social investment that forms part of a broader strategy to improve the quality of national education. [3]
However, not all hopes and plans went smoothly. The FNM program, which was implemented so quickly, encountered serious problems in practice. Since its launch to date, thousands of people, mostly school children, have reported digestive problems and food poisoning from consuming the FNM that was distributed. As of October 1, 2025, the Head of the National Nutrition Agency reported that the total number of victims of food poisoning from consuming FNM since its launch in January 2025 had reached 6,517 people. [4] This fact resulted in the determination of 34 extraordinary events in several regions in Indonesia, as announced by the Ombudsman. [5]
This extraordinary event transformed the policy issue into a legal and government accountability issue. The FNM is not an ordinary social program in general but is claimed by the government as part of the fulfillment of the right to food and health. The framework of international law, both binding and non-binding, can be used as a standard for assessing state actions on such claims. Through E/C.12/1999/5: General Comment No. 12 on The Right to Adequate Food, the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights emphasized that the formulation and implementation of national strategies for the right to food must be carried out in full compliance with the principles of accountability, transparency, and non-discrimination. [6] In addition, a similar thing was also conveyed in the FAO School Food and Nutrition Framework [7] and WFP Report on School Feeding Worldwide 2024 [8]: that school feeding policies should emphasize key issues, such as food safety, controlled procurement, and monitoring mechanisms. Furthermore, the FNM program also needs to be linked to Sustainable Development Goals indicators [9], for example, regarding stunting rates and coverage, so that the results of this program’s implementation can be objectively tested. Disaggregated data collection can be crucial because it can reveal inequalities that might not be apparent in large-scale aggregate data. The goal is to determine which parties truly benefit from the program.
Looking at the context of the Indonesian Government’s FNM program, these international norms raise three legal questions that need to be examined as an initial response to the Extraordinary Event in this FNM program. First, has the state taken ‘reasonable’ procedural steps, both before and during program implementation? The CESCR considers the process as important as the outcome, which includes transparency, participation of affected groups, clear procurement and safety regulations, independent monitoring and oversight, and remedial mechanisms, none of which are optional. The assumption that speed of implementation can substitute for preventive standards is clearly dangerous and carries predictable risks: child illness, school disruption, and even a breakdown in public trust. A rapid program rollout would be acceptable if it included kitchen certification, operator training, and supply chain and distribution testing. However, on the ground, only 34 FNM kitchens have received a Hygiene and Sanitation Certificate, out of a total of 8,583 FNM kitchens registered with the Indonesian Ministry of Health. [10] This is not merely a technical failure but rather a matter of government negligence in fulfilling the due diligence required in implementing the right to health.
Second, has the government mobilized “maximum available resources” and implemented sustainable financing planning? The assumption that a large budget will automatically solve the problem is incorrect and carries a high risk to the country’s financial and economic balance. The realization and additional FNM budget throughout 2025 will consume a total of IDR 99 trillion. [11] In the 2026 State Budget Bill, this program received a fantastic funding allocation of IDR 335 trillion. [12] As a consumer policy, the FNM does receive a substantial funding allocation. However, effective fiscal commitment requires a multi-year plan, emergency reserves for safety response, and independent audits. Program implementation monitoring reports indicate uncertainty between budget absorption and gaps in FNM program planning, with FNM budget absorption only reaching IDR 13 trillion out of a budget ceiling of IDR 71 trillion. [13] Without evidence of mobilizing “maximum available resources,” claims that the state is realizing rights become fragile. A large budget without good governance is no guarantee; it represents a significant risk.
Third, how does the state ensure the quality of program implementation? The assumption that a program labeled “rights-based” is sufficient to guarantee quality implementation does not justify a “charity” that can threaten lives. Simply stating that a program fulfills rights, in this case the FNM, does not automatically replace technical regulations covering nutritional standards, safety protocols, laboratory audits, and compensation mechanisms. International documents, such as the FAO Framework and WFP practice reports, recommend that rights be operationalized through clear technical regulations and an open monitoring system. Without these, the program risks becoming mere rhetoric that masks implementation failures. Meanwhile, in the Indonesian context, the government is considering a compensation mechanism following the FNM food poisoning incident. This mechanism was not prepared and was never thought of before the launch of the FNM program, since the government did not want any poisoning incidents like this to occur. [14] The failure to consider preventive measures and post-incident resolution mechanisms demonstrates that the government has not planned this program properly; in other words, it has been implemented hastily and has neglected the precautionary principle.
To address the challenges facing the FNM implementation in Indonesia, Indonesia can take several pragmatic, rights-based corrective measures. These steps align with the guidance provided by CESR, FAO, and WFP as preventive and curative strategies to address potential risks.
First, safety must be the primary and foremost priority, as a legal obligation for the state in program implementation. The government must transform technical safeguards into legal obligations that align the program with the right to health and reduce the risk of harm to beneficiaries. This can be achieved by formally regulating tightened safety standards, requiring kitchen licensing and certification, implementing regular independent audits, and implementing oversight of the distribution chain. Administrative sanctions can be implemented transparently by suspending or revoking permits and the participation of problematic parties.
Second, the government must publish and utilize disaggregated data. This data allows for testing of non-discrimination claims and demonstrates whether the program’s benefits are truly felt by those who truly need them. This data can be linked to daily nutritional goals and stunting reduction goals, using international measurement standards. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation will be easier with data that has a higher level of sensitivity than centralized data on a macro level.
Third, regarding finances, the government must allocate specific budget lines and require an independent audit mechanism as key to multi-year financing for the program’s sustainability. Furthermore, the government must establish a policy framework to develop contingency plans for unforeseen events in the future, primarily to address safety risks.
Fourth, the government needs to establish an operational remediation mechanism to handle administrative complaints promptly and provide a path to compensation for aggrieved parties. Access to effective remediation is a central element in upholding rights. Furthermore, the government can leverage international technical collaboration with the FAO, WFP, and other countries with extensive experience in implementing school feeding, providing a model framework that can be optimally adapted, particularly regarding procurement and safety protocols.
The extraordinary events surrounding the FNM program provide an important lesson: international law is not merely a normative legitimacy but rather an operational tool for improving public policy. This analysis is not intended to reject the Indonesian government’s FNM program but rather as constructive criticism to ensure its implementation is more targeted and minimizes risks. If the government accepts this as a lesson, the FNM program can serve as an example of how states translate international rights into concrete benefits, and vice versa, the program can become a symbol that erodes public trust and undermines claims to social rights. Ultimately, the most important thing is that children eat at school in the safest way possible, receive adequate nutrition, learn effectively, and return home healthy.
