Quite true, but is that a practical method when photographing plants, insects and fungi in the wild? Not that I am trying to be awkward, or even rude, but I might walk 5 to 10 miles in search of specimens, and each photo might take 30 minutes, for various reasons such as setting up lighting. I am aware of profiling tools - I use one on my monitor - and the theory behind profiles, white balance, spectral distributions (absorptiion and emission spectra etc), but it comes down to what can be done in the field. (At present I seem to get pretty good colours, with no WB issues. Maybe someone more skilled in the science of lighting would see issues.)
Yes, it is practical. You need to get a shot of a Macbeth *in approximately that light* with the camera you are using. Just takes a moment. BTW, there exists a pocket mini Macbeth card. What is happening here is that you need to re-establish the camera primaries in *those* light conditions.
On tests I did with my own profiling code, the local profile made all the difference. And I'm sure that Adobe's profiler is at least as good as mine. I'm not giving any secrets away here, to get pleasing color you still neeed skill and good eyes.