It is well established that food production will need to increase by 70% to feed the world’s population by 2050 (FAO, 2017) under a backdrop of declining land and natural resource availability. One way to meet our food needs is through sustainable intensification (SI), where agricultural yields are increased without adverse environmental impact or additional land use. However, most research into SI has been in open field growing systems. Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) may be another tool of SI that improves food security, especially in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). CEA encompasses a variety of systems such as high tunnels, greenhouses, or vertical farms that take a technology-based approach to increase crop productivity, which is decoupled from the natural environment. This paper looked at the tradeoffs of CEA through literature review and life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) within the context of developed and developing countries. The findings suggest that controlled environment agriculture is not a one size fits all model. CEA has been shown to increase water use efficiency, but at the expense of higher energy use. The choice of system needs to consider the tradeoffs between water, energy use, and the crop grown. While the U.S. has wide adoption of all CEA technologies with a focus on supplemental or sole source lighting, India has adopted more simplified versions of CEA, including polytunnels and plastic greenhouses with natural lighting and limited cooling. CEA can reduce poverty through job creation, thus indirectly supporting food security through increased income. However, due to higher production costs associated with greenhouse and plant factories, commercial farms continue to target high end retail. Without more widespread adoption and expansion of product offerings, CEA will have trouble meeting the dietary requirements of the world’s growing population.