Barberton Tried and Failed to Ban Cans and Bottles in the 1970s

The city's attempt to combat litter and pollution was ultimately repealed after facing pushback from businesses and lack of support from neighboring cities.

Mar. 22, 2026 at 10:10am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In the early 1970s, the city of Barberton, Ohio made headlines when it attempted to ban the sale of beer and soft drinks in cans and non-returnable glass bottles. Inspired by the first Earth Day and concerns over litter and pollution, a local citizens group called HOPE lobbied the city council to pass the "Ban the Can" measure. However, the proposal faced opposition from the beverage industry and local businesses, and ultimately the city council voted to repeal the ban a year later after failing to gain support from neighboring cities.

Why it matters

Barberton's attempt to ban cans and bottles highlights the challenges cities faced in the 1970s when trying to address growing environmental concerns like litter and pollution. While the measure was well-intentioned, it ultimately failed due to industry opposition, concerns over economic impacts, and a lack of regional coordination. The story provides insight into the early days of the modern environmental movement and the difficulties in implementing impactful policy changes at the local level.

The details

The Barberton City Council voted 9-0 in March 1971 to prohibit the sale of beer and soft drinks in cans and non-returnable glass bottles. The measure, championed by a local citizens group called HOPE, aimed to reduce litter and pollution by requiring all beverages to be sold in deposit bottles that could be returned to stores. Violators would face a $100 fine and 30 days in jail. However, the ban faced pushback from the glass and beverage industries, who argued it would be ineffective and discriminate against local retailers. After a year of the ban being in place, the new city council voted 9-0 in April 1972 to repeal the ordinance, citing concerns over its constitutionality and enforceability.

  • The Barberton City Council voted to ban cans and non-returnable bottles in March 1971.
  • The ban was scheduled to take effect on April 15, 1972.
  • In March 1972, the city council voted 9-0 to repeal the ban.

The players

HOPE (Humans Organized to Preserve the Earth)

A local citizens group that lobbied the Barberton City Council to ban the sale of cans and non-returnable bottles in order to reduce litter and pollution.

Julie Weatherington

The chairwoman of HOPE who presented the group's petition with over 1,000 signatures calling for tougher pollution laws to the Barberton City Council.

Lawrence Maurer

A former Barberton City Council member and HOPE supporter who argued the ban was a safety issue due to broken glass at a local lake.

Dr. Richard Sickler

A Barberton City Council member who chaired the health and welfare committee and introduced the ordinance to ban cans and non-returnable bottles.

Albert Canfora

A Barberton City Council member who expected Akron and Cuyahoga Falls to follow Barberton's lead in banning cans and bottles.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“If Barberton takes this first step, others will follow.”

— Julie Weatherington, HOPE Chairwoman

“There have been 25 cut feet at Lake Anna already this summer and three kids were hospitalized. We hauled a bushel of broken glass from the water.”

— Lawrence Maurer, Former Barberton Councilman

“This legislation simply will not work. It will not reduce litter and it will not curb pollution.”

— Robert X. Patoff, Spokesman, Glass Container Manufacturers Institute

“If a person presently throws bottles into the streets, he'll continue whether there is a 2-cent, 5-cent or 10-cent deposit on them.”

— Ethel Rosio, Owner, Westside Carryout

“I just don't want to see Barberton waste money fighting a losing battle in the courts.”

— Ray Borosky, Barberton City Council Member

The takeaway

Barberton's failed attempt to ban cans and bottles in the 1970s highlights the challenges cities faced in trying to address environmental issues like litter and pollution at the local level. While the measure was well-intentioned, it ultimately failed due to industry opposition, concerns over economic impacts, and a lack of regional coordination - issues that continue to plague efforts to implement impactful environmental policies today.