KEKOSONGAN PENGAWASAN DAN LEMAHNYA PENEGAKAN HUKUM BPOM TERHADAP PEREDARAN PRODUK PANGAN BERIZIN EDAR DI KABUPATEN KLATEN

Abstrak

Penelitian ini menganalisis kinerja Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan (BPOM) dalam pengawasan pasca-peredaran terhadap produk pangan berizin edar yang beredar di Kabupaten Klaten dalam perspektif hukum perlindungan konsumen. Pendekatan yang digunakan adalah yuridis-empiris dengan mengkaji keterpaduan antara norma hukum dan realitas pelaksanaannya di lapangan. Fakta empiris menunjukkan bahwa pada tahun 2025 tidak terdapat kegiatan pengawasan BPOM di Kabupaten Klaten meskipun peredaran produk pangan terus berlangsung secara aktif. Kondisi ini membentuk vacuum of oversight yang secara yuridis bertentangan dengan kewajiban pengawasan berkelanjutan sebagaimana diperintahkan Pasal 86 Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2012 tentang Pangan dan Pasal 10 Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 86 Tahun 2019 tentang Keamanan Pangan. Ketiadaan pengawasan tersebut menyebabkan izin edar MD, ML, dan PIRT kehilangan fungsi protektifnya dan berubah menjadi instrumen administratif semata tanpa mekanisme verifikasi berkelanjutan. Keadaan ini menimbulkan ilusi kepastian hukum, karena produk yang beredar dianggap aman hanya berdasarkan kepemilikan nomor izin edar tanpa adanya inspeksi, pengujian, dan penindakan oleh otoritas pengawas. Dalam perspektif Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen, situasi ini merupakan pelanggaran langsung terhadap hak konsumen atas keamanan dan informasi yang benar sebagaimana dijamin dalam Pasal 4. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa kinerja BPOM dalam pengawasan pangan di Kabupaten Klaten bersifat tidak efektif dan tidak tegas karena gagal menjalankan fungsi preventif dan represif dalam sistem keamanan pangan nasional. Lemahnya pengawasan berimplikasi pada rendahnya tingkat kepatuhan pelaku usaha serta meningkatnya risiko kesehatan masyarakat, sehingga diperlukan penguatan mekanisme inspeksi rutin, sanksi administratif berbasis risiko, dan integrasi pengawasan pusat–daerah sebagai langkah korektif.

This study analyses the performance of the Indonesian Food and Drug Authority (BPOM) in post-market supervision of licensed food products circulating in Klaten Regency from the perspective of consumer protection law. The research adopts a juridical-empirical approach by examining the coherence between legal norms and their implementation in practice. Empirical findings indicate that in 2025 no BPOM inspection activities were conducted in Klaten Regency, despite the continuous circulation of food products in the market. This condition constitutes a vacuum of oversight that is legally inconsistent with the obligation of continuous supervision as mandated by Article 86 of Law No. 18 of 2012 on Food and Article 10 of Government Regulation No. 86 of 2019 on Food Safety. The absence of supervision has caused MD, ML, and PIRT distribution permits to lose their protective function and to be reduced to mere administrative instruments without ongoing verification mechanisms. This situation creates an illusion of legal certainty, as products are deemed safe solely on the basis of holding a distribution permit number without inspection, testing, or enforcement by the supervisory authority. From the perspective of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, this condition constitutes a direct violation of consumers’ rights to safety and accurate information as guaranteed under Article 4. This study concludes that BPOM’s performance in food supervision in Klaten Regency is ineffective and lacks firmness, as it fails to fulfil its preventive and repressive functions within the national food safety system. Weak supervision leads to low compliance among business actors and increases public health risks, thereby necessitating the strengthening of routine inspection mechanisms, risk-based administrative sanctions, and integrated central–local supervision as corrective measures.

This study analyses legal liability for environmental risks arising from the use of modern mining technologies under Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining and Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management. The use of technologies such as open-pit mining, high-capacity hauling systems, blasting technology, and tailings management facilities significantly increases production efficiency while simultaneously enlarging both the probability and magnitude of environmental impacts, including land degradation, water pollution, and failures in mine waste management. Indonesia’s positive legal framework requires holders of Mining Business Licences (Izin Usaha Pertambangan – IUP) to internalise these risks through risk-based business licensing, Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL), reclamation and post-mining plans, and environmental financial guarantees as regulated in Articles 96, 99, and 100 of the Mining Law in conjunction with Articles 22, 36, 67, and 69 of the Environmental Protection Law. The research adopts a normative legal method using statutory and conceptual approaches. The analysis is grounded in the doctrines of the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, and strict liability as the foundations of modern environmental liability. Article 88 of the Environmental Protection Law establishes strict liability for business actors for losses caused by environmental pollution and/or damage without the need to prove fault, making it particularly relevant for high-intensity hazardous technologies in mining operations. The findings reveal a gap between the normative obligations for technological risk control and the actual effectiveness of environmental liability enforcement through administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions. Although the regulatory framework is normatively adequate, it requires strengthening through risk-based technical standards, environmental data transparency, and consistent enforcement of environmental liability in order to ensure the protection of the right to a good and healthy environment.