LONG-TIME observers of Indonesian politics and society usually have no difficulty regaling newcomers with stories about developments in the country that seem to make little sense. A recent one involves a long-running controversy over contaminated infant formula milk.

It began in early 2008, when the local media reported that tests carried out by the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB) in 2006 showed several brands of infant formula powdered milk were contaminated with the Enterobacter sakazakii bacteria. This bacterium rarely affects healthy babies, but can cause illnesses in infants with weak immune systems.

Such cases, however, are rare. According to Food and Drug Monitoring Agency (BPOM) head Husniah Rubiana Thamrin Akib, there have been only 42 cases of infant sickness resulting from milk contamination in Indonesia in the past 48 years. One reason is that the Enterobacter sakazakii bacterium dies when milk is heated to 70 deg C in the process of preparation.

A few weeks later, in response to public concern regarding the IPB research, the BPOM announced the results of its own tests on powdered milk samples. All 96 infant formula brands sold in the country, it said, were free of the bacteria. Tests in subsequent years have produced similar results. Health Minister Endang Rahayu Sedyaningsih speculated that the initial samples tested had been contaminated through unhygienic storage or improper preparation methods.

In some countries, this would have been the end of the matter. But in a society where bureaucratic incompetence and corruption have long encouraged citizens to distrust their political masters, emotions are easily stirred. And 2008 was the year in which consumers across Asia were shocked to learn that formula milk containing melamine – an ingredient in plastic and fertiliser – had caused serious illnesses in thousands of babies in China.

In August, lawyer David Tobing got an order from the South Jakarta District Court requiring the Health Ministry, the BPOM and the IPB to publish the names of the brands the IPB had found to be tainted. Sensing an election-winning issue, politicians too demanded disclosure.

The defendants appealed against the court ruling. The BPOM and the ministry claimed they did not have the information. Nor did they have the power to compel the IPB to hand it over.

The IPB cited academic freedom. Backed by other prominent Indonesian tertiary institutions, it argued that it was not a government regulator. It also argued that it was unethical and against scientific development to disclose any information that could harm or disadvantage the subjects of scientific research.

With the support of previously unknown consumer groups such as the Indonesia Healthy Milk Advocacy, Mr Tobing’s legal team pressed ahead. In January, after months of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled that it was in the public interest that the milk powder brands concerned be named.

The IPB is expected to release the results of its latest research on suspected Enterobacter sakazakii bacteria contamination some time this month. However, it is not clear whether the institute will comply with the court order and release the results of the original study.

One of the striking features of the long-running controversy has been the way major consumer protection groups, such as the Indonesian Consumers Association (YLKI), remained largely on the sidelines. Interviewed in Jakarta in late May, Mr Tulus Abadi of the YLKI said that this was because his organisation regarded the issue irrelevant. Contaminated milk sold in 2006, he explained, would have long disappeared from the market. Besides, the bacteria concerned was not life-threatening and could easily be destroyed.

Then why the determined campaign?

Conspiracy theories on both sides abound. One thing they have in common is the idea that the entire controversy has something to do with competition between companies marketing rival brands of infant formula milk.

Many of the IPB’s critics seem to believe that key figures in the institute – along with those of the BPOM and the ministry – have somehow been induced to remain silent. The alternative view is that the campaign for disclosure has been orchestrated by business rivals who already know which brands are involved.

We may never know the truth. But that is just the point. Indonesian shadow plays never seem to end. And there is no shortage of old hands in Jakarta these days with a story or two to tell.

Copyright © 2011 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd