I think home grown food is sometimes promoted without acknowledging some of the less obvious negatives of it. The primary negative of home grown food is that it is less water efficient than more advanced farming methods such as ones that use hydroponics. This means that while yes, it does technically have a lower carbon footprint, when it comes to the big picture, it is negatively impacting the environment via inefficient use of water, which is very detrimental in places such as California, where drought is very common. However, just because home grown food is inefficient does not take away the benefits of buying locally produced food, since locally grown food does make use of hydroponics. This makes it the best source to buy from, as it is more carbon neutral than major corporations and imported foods, and it is more water efficient than growing food yourself in your garden or backyard.

I disagree with your claim. Although there are very advanced farming methods that farmers use, individual farmers growing their own food can still be water efficient. According to ucanr.edu, "How a garden is irrigated can affect how much water it uses. Water early in the morning, so that water has a better chance to soak into the soil before it evaporates.  A drip system (under mulch) is an efficient way to deliver water to crops with minimal evaporation loss.  To avoid overwatering, monitor soil moisture." This is just one of the ways that individual farmers can use water efficiently. It's really up to the farmer whether or not they want to spend the time to use efficient methods. In my own personal opinion, I feel like the positives of having a garden, also outweigh the negatives. Having healthy fresh unprocessed food is very important, and is worth spending extra money either on getting an irrigation system, or spending extra money on water.

Source: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postde … rozoning).