I totally agree that labeling should in some cases be enough, banning is not always the solution. However I do understand that the regulating parties are under a huge amount of pressure especially from customers afraid of 'chemicals', blown out of proportion by (social) media and 'green' political movements that feed upon the feeling of customers that 'natural is better', which irks many cosmetic scientists. It's a minefield where each solution seems to come with a new set of problems. I don't envy my colleagues at RIFM.
For example a few years back small indie perfumes couldn't even have dreamed to use natural isolates. Now they are being sold at Mandy Aftel's shop. Just a few hundred years ago cinnamon and clove oil were much more exotic and expensive than rose otto. Or just 3 decades ago the price of East Indian Sandalwood was dirt cheap. The world evolves, science evolves, people evolve, the economy evolves, the way people's skin react to different substances change (for example sensitization is something that occurs due to repeated exposure). Okay, so not everyone might like or agree with the changes, but with every change new opportunities arise. That is were true creativity and innovation come in, not by looking back and holding on tight to the past or trying to reproduce vintage.
Imho that is the spirit of any entrepreneurial perfumer that will truly succeed: by moving forward, finding solutions and being a part of the solution instead of the problem.