FSGI Says MBG Toxic Victims Can Demand Compensation To The State

A number of students in Garut Regency underwent medical treatment after experiencing symptoms of poisoning at the Kadungora Health Center, Tuesday 30 September 2025. (ANTARA)

JAKARTA - The Federation of Indonesian Teachers' Unions (FSGI) assesses that victims of poisoning in the Free Nutrition Food (MBG) program have a legal basis to demand compensation from the state.

Chairman of the FSGI Expert Council, Retno Listyarti, emphasized that the case that befell thousands of students due to eating MBG food is a form of service error that can be held accountable by law.

"The poisoning experienced by students due to MBG food is an error in the service of the body in the country which can be demanded for compensation to the state in the form of improving health and certain compensation," said Retno in his statement, Thursday, October 2.

Retno emphasized that victims of poisoning can demand compensation based on Article 1365 of the Civil Criminal Code. The article reads, "Every act that violates the law and brings harm to others, requires the person who causes the loss because of his mistake in replacing the loss".

The compensation that can be applied for by the victim includes two aspects, namely material losses in the form of real costs suffered, as well as immaterial losses or loss of hope.

"Change losses can be submitted to the state by looking at the impact. Looking at the impact, it can be concluded that there are errors that have an impact on causing losses," said Retno.

According to Retno, MBG's kitchen errors in the provision of food should be subject to nutritional health science. However, there are no rules that formulate sanctions for cooks and nutritionists who are negligent.

Retno noted a number of fundamental problems in the MBG program. First, the use of the MBG budget from the APBN is not subject to Presidential Decree No. 12 of 2021 concerning the Procurement of Government Goods/Services, so that the monitoring mechanism becomes weak.

Second, the cooperation between the National Nutrition Agency (BGN), kitchen partners MBG, and schools is only based on the MoU, not the contracts supervised by the competent authorities. In fact, the MoU is subject to Article 1320 of the Civil Code and should be legally binding.

Third, the allocation of the MBG budget is carried out on the basis of government discretion, in accordance with Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration. This makes budget changes not classified as unlawful violations, but has the potential to cause governance problems.

Fourth, FSGI highlighted the plan to transfer the 2026 education budget for MBG which is considered to be able to threaten teacher professional allowances. "If the right of teacher professional allowances is removed or postponed for the sake of MBG, then it is clear that it violates Law Number 14 of 2005," said Retno.

From this incident, Retno assessed that the government is obliged to treat and restore the health of MBG poisoning victims and provide additional compensation. In addition, the MBG program needs to be repaired without stopping the kitchen, so that nutrition services continue to run under strict supervision.

Then, education funds for MBG cannot eliminate the rights of teachers who receive professional allowances. MBG must also bring benefits to children, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers, while while still protecting the welfare of teachers.

"The MBG program should be a blessing, not causing harm and unrest in the community. The state must be present and responsible," concluded Retno.