Jakarta – The lack of monitoring has resulted in products with halal (conforming to Islamic law) certification, but which are actually haram (non-halal) being sold in public. This finding shows even more clearly that halal certification, which has long been claimed as a way to protect Muslim customers, simply provides opportunities for corruption. It is time this obligation was turned around: non-halal labels for products that do not meet halal standards.
On April 21, 2025, the Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) announced that nine children's snacks contain porcine ingredients. Seven of these snacks obtained halal certification in 2021 to 2024. The institution claims that in its investigation four years ago, it received a recommendation from the halal certification agency that the gelatin in the marshmallows was free of pork products.
There is a long food audit chain by the BPJPH and the Food and Drug Monitoring Agency (BPOM). These two bodies have to carry out repeated audits of products to ensure they are still halal. This lengthy process is costly, not only for producers but also for the public institutions that carry out the investigations. In the end, it is the consumers that end up paying higher prices for goods. Even worse, it is possible that goods that are certified as halal are in fact haram.
If the reverse policy was applied, namely mandatory non-halal labelling, the process would be simpler. Food producers whose production process do not meet halal standards would be obliged to attach a "non-halal" label. The BPJPH and the BPOM would still carry out monitoring by, for example, regularly and randomly testing products that do not have non-halal labels. Harsh punishments would be handed down to any food producers whose products were found to contain non-halal ingredients, but which did not have this label.
To make this happen, the House of Representatives (DPR) needs to amend Law No. 33/2014 concerning Halal Guarantee Products. If in the past the DPR could transfer the authority of the halal label from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) to the BPJPH, changing the halal certificate to a non-halal label is certainly not a difficult thing. The principle is consumer protection, although product certification remains a loophole for corruption and increases production costs.
With the audit scheme of halal or non-halal inspection agencies paid by producers, the loophole for corruption in halal certification is always open. Tempo's investigation found that producers were willing to incur "service costs" – expenses outside the official tariff – to get the halal label. They include the excess costs as production costs, which will impact prices at the consumer level.
In the case of the marshmallows, it is not impossible that there was corruption. The price of the gelatin food ingredient from pigs is less than that from cows. It also makes candy chewier, and easier to mix with sugar, meaning that products keep their shape longer than those using beef gelatin. It is this difference in price and the properties of pork gelatin that tempts producers so much that they will use it again once this fuss has died down.
Weak monitoring erodes public trust. And Law No. 11/2020 on Job Creation states that certification need only be done once, as long as there are no changes to the composition or the production process. With this mechanism, there should be closer oversight of products on sale.
Subsequent monitoring should involve the public. Anyone who discovers a suspicious product that is not labelled non-halal, would be able to call a complaint hotline. If a producer were proved to have broken the rules, the good oversight agency could impose harsh punishments, including a ban on the sale of the product.
Changing the halal label rules would simplify the distribution process, which would make food cheaper. At the same time, with strict oversight, there would be an endeavor to protect consumers, especially Muslim consumers. In short, both must happen simultaneously.
– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine
Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2003809/halal-label-but-hara