KECENDERUNGAN MASALAH GIZI BURUK DI INDONESIA

Abstract

ABSTRAK Prevalensi gizi kurang dan buruk menurut BB/U belum banyak berubah dari sejak krisis hingga kini, sementara dana untuk program perbaikan gizi semakin meningkat. Revitalisasi Posyandu dan Sistem Kewaspadaan pangan dan Gizi (SKPG) untuk penanggulangan masalah rawan pangan dan gizi di sebagian besar kabupaten di Indonesia tidak diimplementasikan. Telaahan ini bertujuan untuk mempelajari beberapa fakta dari hasil analisis data tentang gizi kurang dan gizi buruk yang terjadi di Indonesia. Data yang digunakan adalah hasil Pemantauan Status Gizi (PSG) Jawa Barat tahun 2004, Hasil Survei Gizi di Provinsi Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (NAD) pasca-Tsunami, 2005, dan survei masalah gizi mikro di 7 provinsi tahun 2006. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa dari 21,3 persen anak balita yang termasuk kategori rawan, 10 persen di antaranya sangat rawan untuk menjadi status BB/U Rendah (Gizi Kurang). Kemudian, secara umum dari 32,9 persen anak balita berstatus BB/U Rendah yang ada pada posisi rawan, 13,2 persen di antaranya ada pada posisi sangat rawan untuk menjadi status BB/U Sangat Rendah (Gizi Buruk). Berdasarkan TB/U, proporsi anak balita dengan TB/U Normal yang rawan untuk menjadi status TB/U Pendek meningkat seiring dengan bertambahnya umur. Secara umum 39,9 persen anak balita yang berstatus TB/U pendek ada pada posisi rawan, di antaranya 17,8 persen ada pada posisi sangat rawan untuk menjadi status TB/U Sangat Pendek. Namun, berdasarkan BB/TB, hanya 9 persen anak balita berstatus BB/TB Normal yang ada dalam posisi rawan, 3,9 persen di antaranya ada pada posisi sangat rawan untuk menjadi status BB/TB Kurus. Karena jumlah anak balita berstatus gizi baik (normal) yang ada pada posisi rawan terus meningkat mengikuti pertambahan usia, maka upaya perbaikan gizi yang bersifat preventif sudah harus dilaksanakan sejak usia dini, tidak hanya untuk anak balita kurang gizi tetapi juga bagi anak balita yang dikategorikan berstatus gizi baik. Arah kebijakan pemerintah hendaknya melalui kegiatan yang bersifat PREVENTIF dan PROMOTIF yang PROAKTIF, harus diimplementasikan secara benar, baik di pusat maupun di daerah. Kata kunci: SKPG, Posyandu, status gizi THE TREND OF THE OCCURRENCE OF SEVERE UNDERNUTRITION IN INDONESIA ABSTRACT The prevalences of underweight and severely underweight have not been changing since crisis in 1997 up to now, meanwhile the cost for nutrition intervention increase from time to time. Posyandu revitalization and food and nutrition surveillance system (SKPG) to prevent vulnerability in food and nutrition at district level have not been fully implemented. This article is aimed to study several facts resulted from data analysis of undernutrition and severe undernutrition in Indonesia. The data used were taken from nutrition status surveillance system in West Java, 2004; nutrition survey in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (NAD) Province after Tsunami, 2005; and micronutruents survey in 7 provinces, 2006. The result showed that among 21.3 percent of children under five years old who categorized as vulnerable, 10 percent were very vulnerable to be underweight using W/A index. In addition, in general, from 32.9 percent of children under five years old who had underweight (W/A) at vulnerable position, 13.2 percent would go down to be severe underweight. Based on H/A, those who had a normal status would be vulnerable to be stunted as the age increase. Generally, 39.9 percent of children under five who stunted were in the vulnerable position, and 17.8 percent of them were very vulnerable to be severely stunted. However, based on W/H index, among those who were normal, only 9 percent were categorized as vulnerable, and 3.9 percent were in very vulnerable position to be wasted. Because the children who had a normal nutrition status who were vulnerable increased as the age increased, it needs to start the preventive program since early age. The program should be proposed not only for those who had undernutrition but also for children who had a normal nutrition status. The direction of government program should cover preventive, promotive which is procative. The program should be implemented with correct way, either in central or local areas.