Table of Contents
Supplier declarations are one of the most common — and most dangerous — assumptions in Proposition 65 compliance.
Many manufacturers believe that a signed supplier statement saying “no Proposition 65 listed chemicals” provides protection. In reality, these declarations are often the first thing that collapses during enforcement.
Proposition 65 liability does not hinge on whether a supplier claimed compliance. It hinges on whether your company had reasonably ascertainable knowledge of listed chemicals in its products — and whether you can prove how that knowledge was obtained.
Supplier declarations alone rarely meet that standard.
Why Supplier Declarations Became the Default
Supplier declarations became popular because they were:
- easy to request
- simple to file
- inexpensive to collect
- scalable on paper
For years, this approach felt sufficient — especially when enforcement was less aggressive and chemical lists were shorter.
That era is over.
The Core Problem: Declarations Are Not Evidence
A supplier declaration is a statement, not proof.
Most declarations fail because they:
- do not list specific chemicals or CAS numbers
- are not tied to specific materials or components
- lack version control or expiry dates
- are reused across multiple customers and products
- are not updated when formulations change
From an enforcement perspective, these documents demonstrate assumption, not diligence.
How Proposition 65 Enforcement Views Supplier Declarations
In Prop 65 cases, regulators and private enforcers do not ask:
“Did your supplier say the product was compliant?”
They ask:
“What systems did you have in place to know whether a listed chemical was present?”
If a supplier declaration is the only control mechanism, it raises immediate red flags.
Declarations may support a broader compliance program — but they cannot substitute for one.
“Reasonably Ascertainable Knowledge” Changes Everything
Under Proposition 65, companies are expected to act on information that is reasonably obtainable through normal business operations.
That includes:
- supplier material disclosures
- chemical composition data
- industry knowledge of common additives
- known risks associated with certain materials, coatings, or processes
If a listed chemical is commonly used in a category of materials — and no effort was made to verify its absence — supplier declarations offer little protection.
Where Supplier Declarations Break Down in Practice
1. Formulation drift
Suppliers routinely change formulations due to cost, availability, or performance. Declarations often remain unchanged.
2. Sub-tier suppliers
Tier-1 suppliers may not fully understand or disclose what sub-tier suppliers introduce into materials.
3. Generic language
Phrases like “to the best of our knowledge” provide no legal defense when knowledge should have been obtainable.
4. Reused documents
The same declaration is often applied across different parts, materials, and customers — regardless of actual chemical content.
Common Chemicals That Slip Past Declarations
Many Proposition 65 chemicals are introduced through materials suppliers consider “low risk,” including:
- heavy metals in pigments and alloys
- phthalates and plasticizers in polymers
- PFAS in coatings, finishes, and treatments
- solvents and processing aids not present in final BOMs
These substances rarely appear in high-level declarations — but they appear frequently in enforcement actions.
What Actually Protects Companies Under Proposition 65
Companies that withstand Prop 65 scrutiny do not rely on declarations alone. They implement defensible control systems, including:
- supplier-to-material mapping
- chemical-level disclosures where risk is known
- reassessment triggers for supplier changes
- documentation tied to specific compliance decisions
- audit trails showing how conclusions were reached
In this context, supplier declarations become supporting inputs, not shields.
Supplier Declarations Are a Starting Point — Not a Defense
Supplier declarations are not useless. But treating them as protection is a mistake.
Under modern Proposition 65 enforcement, protection comes from process, visibility, and evidence — not from signed PDFs sitting in a folder.
If your Prop 65 program depends primarily on supplier declarations, you don’t have a compliance system.
You have exposure.
Moving Beyond Declarations to Defensible Knowledge
Supplier declarations can support a Proposition 65 program — but they cannot carry it.
Real protection comes from knowing what is in your materials, how that knowledge was obtained, and how it is kept current as suppliers and formulations change.
Acquis Compliance helps manufacturers move beyond static declarations by structuring supplier disclosures, material-level chemical data, and change controls into a traceable system that supports reasonably ascertainable knowledge — the standard Prop 65 enforcement actually applies.
Not to replace supplier input. But to ensure it is verified, contextualized, and defensible when scrutiny arrives.