I'm not familiar enough with all the arguments and the studies the author cites as to come up with a careful rebuttal of "isn't necessarily better for the environment." I acknowledge the fact that local food consumption cannot scale as it is (or rather as it is in wealthy countries) to the point where it replaces the current system. The reasons are not simply farmers not investing fuel efficiency, or "[not having] the infrastructure in place like the big guys do." There are cultural aspects arising from the current food supply system that need to be overcome. I'm in a country (Panama) where most of the population resides in warm (24-32 C all year) areas. Still, except for grains and fruits, the food consumed by the not so rural population primarily comes from the temperate mountains. Sweet potatoes (widely consumed a couple generations ago) can be easily grown anywhere, they are instead mostly imported and not remotely as common as potatoes. The original article does a good job of emphasizing the cultural aspects of local food consumption. That culture still has to develop to the point where consumers expectations are not constrained by the dominant system. As long as local food has to adapt to those expectations, it will be to a considerable extent just an imitation, and indeed an inefficient one.

"Society should also consider the economic and social costs of local food systems, which could hold back the growth of developing nations." That's a statement I find particularly puzzling, and that shows the article's tendency to base its argument on effects that are not analyzed well enough within the system. The globalized food supply system, has since the Green Revolution, made poor countries become net importers of food. The "successes" have come at great social and environmental costs (ever heard of "Banana Republics").