Free Nutritious Meals Amid Global Economic Storm: Nine Countries Have Similar Programs

By Stephanus SB Raharjo – Social Observer

INDONESIA’S Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program, initiated by President Prabowo Subianto, is not limited to schoolchildren. The initiative also targets pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers and toddlers—critical stages of life when the human body is shaped by nutrition, protein intake, vitamins and healthy eating habits.

Yet instead of receiving unanimous support, the program has sparked debate.

Critics argue that the initiative is too costly. Others say it is overly ambitious. Some even question its funding sources, as if the government were embarking on an unprecedented policy experiment.

In reality, the idea is far from new.

Providing meals to schoolchildren has long been part of education systems around the world, and in some countries it has even become embedded in public culture.

Finland began offering free school lunches as early as 1948. Sweden followed in 1973. Japan has integrated school meals into character education: children not only eat together but also learn discipline, respect for food and responsibility, including cleaning up after meals.

Thailand has operated a national school lunch program since 1970, while South Korea expanded similar initiatives nationwide in 2011. India runs the world’s largest school meal program, feeding tens of millions of children every day. Even developing nations such as Brazil and Kenya have adopted school feeding as a strategic development policy.

Data from the World Food Programme shows that at least 107 countries now have school meal policies. By 2024, around 139 million children worldwide were receiving meals at school through government-supported programs.

These figures represent more than statistics. They reflect a global recognition of a simple truth: human development often begins in the kitchen.

In several countries, school meal programs have evolved beyond nutrition policy into economic engines.

Brazil, for instance, requires that a portion of food used in school meal programs be purchased from local family farmers. The result is an economic chain that links fields to classrooms.

Farmers gain a reliable market. Children receive fresh food. Rural communities experience economic circulation. School meals thus become not merely a consumption program but also an instrument of development.

This broader logic is increasingly evident: governments are not only feeding children, but also sustaining food ecosystems.

Indonesia appears to be moving in the same direction.

If designed effectively, the MBG program could generate significant demand for rice, eggs, fish, vegetables and fruit produced by local farmers, livestock breeders and coastal fishermen. The lunch plates of schoolchildren could become nodes of economic activity.

However, feeding millions of children daily also carries significant responsibility.

Food is not only about satiety. It concerns safety, nutritional quality and proper preparation, storage and distribution.

Nutrition experts warn that a national feeding program must ensure strict food safety standards. Bacterial contamination such as Salmonella or Bacillus cereus could pose serious risks if production kitchens are poorly managed.

Menus must also go beyond calorie counts. They need to be designed according to recommended dietary allowances. Moreover, the program should avoid the trap of ultra-processed foods—convenient and inexpensive but nutritionally poor.

Weak oversight could turn a well-intended health initiative into a new public health challenge.

This is where the state is tested: not in its intentions, but in its governance.

Amid the debate lies a more fundamental question: Is feeding children a fiscal burden, or an investment in the future?

History suggests that nations serious about building the next generation rarely hesitate in answering that question.

Finland has maintained its school meal program despite economic fluctuations. Japan preserves it as part of national education. India continues expanding coverage even under budget pressures.

They seem to understand something often overlooked in modern economic discussions: the future of a nation is not determined solely by industrial policy, foreign investment or growth figures.

Sometimes it begins with something far simpler.

A child sitting in a classroom.
A plate of warm rice with vegetables and eggs.
A healthy body that will one day become the strength, intellect and hope of a nation.

Amid a turbulent global economy, there may be no quieter—yet more essential—investment than that.****