From the discourse that has emerged so far, one particular innovation has sparked both curiosity and concern, namely fish “milk” as a substitute for dairy in these meals.

The Marine and Fisheries Ministry has recently touted fish “milk” as a high-protein alternative to cow’s milk, suggesting it could support the nutrition of students across the country.

While this innovation may appear to be a creative solution, experts are right to express concern about whether it truly aligns with the nation’s broader public health and nutrition goals.

Firstly, promoting fish “milk” as a substitute for dairy appears to be innovation for innovation’s sake. While novel, it may not effectively address Indonesia’s core nutritional challenges, particularly those highlighted in the recently passed Law No. 59/2024, which outlines the long-term national development plan leading up to 2045.

Among the key goals outlined are the reduction of stunting and malnutrition rates, improved dietary diversity and the fortification of foods with essential micronutrients.

While fish “milk” may be high in protein, its micronutrient profile, bioavailability and ability to meet the nutritional needs of children compared with traditional dairy or other nutrient-dense foods are still questionable.

The broader concern is that this innovation does not appear to align with these nutrition targets. Indonesia’s nutritional priorities, as outlined in the new law, focus on ensuring sustainable and diverse food systems that meet the needs of children (and pregnant women).

Rather than focusing on niche innovations as such, efforts should center on improving the accessibility of balanced meals with adequate micronutrients for children who are most at risk of undernutrition.

The development of fish “milk”, although potentially a boon for certain industrial sectors, seems to detract from this broader public health goal. The emphasis should be on proven strategies, like fortifying staple foods and ensuring that school meals contain a variety of fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

Secondly, the sudden focus on fish “milk” as a flagship idea risks becoming more of a political distraction than a meaningful nutritional intervention. According to media reports, the industrial sector is gearing up for the production of fish “milk”, but the practical benefits for children in schools remain unclear.

This rush to showcase innovation could very well be more about impressing political allies or gaining favor with the incoming administration than addressing the real nutritional needs of the intended population.

Moreover, the prospect of spending vast amounts of public funds – an estimated Rp 77 trillion (US$ 5 billion) in the first year alone – on this program demands that the government focus on initiatives that truly serve the country’s long-term health and education goals.

The free meal program should not be used as a platform for experimental products that have yet to prove their efficacy. Even dairy milk, for which we are still reliant on livestock imports, has marginal appeal due to its astronomical price tag and lingering questions regarding its suitability for Indonesian diets and ecosystems.

Resources should be directed toward evidence-based nutrition solutions that promote not only physical health but also improve nutrition literacy among students.

This brings us to the crucial point of education. The new law also emphasizes the importance of improving human capital through better nutrition and education. In this sense, free meals are more than just food; they are an opportunity to teach younger generations about healthy eating habits.

Introducing a product like fish “milk” without adequate public health backing risks undermining this educational aspect. Children need to learn about the importance of a balanced diet, rich in diverse, familiar and culturally appropriate foods.

Finally, we must remember that this free meal program represents a significant investment in our future generations. It deserves a level of care and consideration that goes beyond political promises.

To hastily introduce initiatives like fish “milk” without addressing broader nutritional goals will risk reducing the program to just another election gimmick.