You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 22, 2018

First Official Guidelines on Food Recall in Indonesia

Informed Counsel

The Indonesia National Agency of Drug and Food Control (NADFC) has issued the nation’s first official guidelines for food recall in the Head of NADFC Regulation No. 22 of 2017, which entered into force on November 28, 2017. The regulation establishes food recall procedures for manufacturers, importers, and distributors who are obligated to recall food products that are not in accordance with requirements set forth in prevailing laws and regulations.

Food recall is applicable to registered and unregistered processed food products, both local and imported. These include exported food products that have problems in the designated exporting country, and domestic processed food products registered with Indonesian municipal government authorities.

Mandatory Recall

Mandatory food recall requires an order from the NADFC, and may occur if a distributed product poses risk of causing disease or injury; a product does not meet food safety laws or regulations; or the recall is deemed necessary to protect public health.

The NADFC may utilize information from the following sources to determine whether to order a mandatory product recall:

  1. Balai Besar/Balai POM (i.e., provincial-level authority of NADFC);
  2. Nongovernmental organizations;
  3. Research institutions or universities;
  4. Mass media;
  5. Consumers;
  6. Food business operators;
  7. Overseas and international food safety organizations (e.g., International Food Safety Authorities Network, the European Union Rapid Alert System for Food and Fee, etc.); and
  8. Other official sources.

Voluntary Recall

A food business operator such as a manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer, may use information from the following sources to determine whether to conduct voluntary recall of a food product:

  1. Test data;
  2. Consumers;
  3. Supplier of food ingredient used by a manufacturer;
  4. Federal and provincial government agencies; and
  5. Other sources.

The manufacturer, importer, or distributor must provide the following information to the NADFC in order to conduct a voluntary recall:

  1. Identity of food product to be recalled;
  2. Reason for recall;
  3. Risk assessment of shortage of product supply in the market;
  4. Quantity of food produced or being produced;
  5. Quantity of food estimated to be in distribution;
  6. Distribution information, including contact persons’ details if necessary;
  7. Records of communication related to the food recall;
  8. Plan/strategy for food recall; and
  9. Contact details of responsible persons at the company conducting the food recall.

The intent to recall a food product must be communicated to the NADFC through its 24-hour call center, and to buyers and consumers through letters, emails, or fax.

Recall Classifications

Based on information received, the NADFC will conduct a health risk assessment to determine the classification of the food recall, with three classification types:

Class I recall. To qualify as a Class I recall, consumption of or exposure to the food product is presumed to cause serious health problems or even death. The timeline for a Class I Recall is as follows:

  • Issuance of a public warning by the NADFC within 24 hours after determination of the  classification of the recall;
  • Recalled products are prohibited for sale or purchase and must be secured immediately after the public warning;
  • Food products to be recalled must be cleared from markets within 14 calendar days after issuance of the NADFC’s recall order.

Class II recall. In a Class II recall, consumption of or exposure to the food product is presumed to cause temporary disruption to health, recoverable disruption to health, or a small possibility of serious disruption to health. This classification includes food that does not meet the mandatory Indonesian National Standard for quality, packaged food products that are distributed without a marketing permit, and food products that contain pork but fail to disclose this information on their food label. Food products to be recalled under Class II must be cleared from markets within 30 calendar days of issuance of the NADFC’s recall order.

Class III recall. In a Class III recall, consumption of or exposure to a food product is not detrimental to health, but there is a breach of regulation other than those mentioned under Class I and II recalls. Food products to be recalled under Class III must be cleared from markets within 60 calendar days of issuance of the NADFC’s recall order.

Recall Procedure

The process for a food recall in Indonesia consists of several steps. First, the NADFC will issue a recall order to the food manufacturer or importer after completing its health risk assessment. The NADFC will then issue a circular to all Balai Besar/Balai POM to instruct them to coordinate with local government agencies in the recall. In the case of a Class I recall, the circular will also include instructions to secure and destroy food products.

A public warning is subsequently issued by NADFC in a Class I recall, or by the relevant business operator in a voluntary recall. The recall is then executed within the provided timeline and recalled products are handled in accordance with official guidelines. If the recall has been effectively executed, the NADFC will issue an order letter to cease the recall; otherwise, an order letter to repeat the recall will be issued.

The NADFC will determine the next course of action on the recalled products for products in mandatory recalls, while products in voluntary recalls may be handled in the following ways as determined by the company: destroyed; used for other purposes besides human consumption (e.g., as animal feed); reprocessed to ensure food safety; relabeled; or returned to suppliers (in the case of imported food products).

Reporting

All activities related to a food recall must be documented and reported to the NADFC by the manufacturer, importer, or distributor. There are two types of reports:

A progress report must be provided to confirm that the responsible party has identified all products to be recalled, and has communicated about the recall to all related parties. The progress report must be provided within 10 working days from the start of a Class II or III recall. For a Class I recall, the NADFC will determine the timeline for providing a progress report.

A final report must be provided within 10 working days after the recall is completed. It will be used by the NADFC to assess the effectiveness of the recall process.

Simulation Exercise

As part of food recall guidelines, business operators are required to perform a food recall and food traceability simulation exercise at least once a year, and document the exercise activities and results. This requirement is intended to measure the effectiveness of current food recall and food traceability systems.

The guidelines set forth in the Head of NADFC Regulation No. 22 of 2017 appear to provide a comprehensive framework for business operators to follow when a recall is deemed necessary. Although the guidelines are still relatively new, it is hoped that they will contributed to more effective food recalls and promote the confidence of food and beverage investors in Indonesia.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of