S1. X can be done to handle the unsavory practice by Y, which limits growth.
S2. X can be done to handle the unsavory practice, which limits growth, by Y.
In this sentence the descriptive clause "which limits growth" is supposed to apply to the unsavory practice. Does that mean S1 usage is incorrect?
What's the best way to rewrite or express the idea that the non-restrictive clause applies to unsavory practice?
I see both S1 and S2 confusing and not easy to read. Furthermore, this problem seems to be very common whenever some X has both a descriptive thing and a restrictive clause and you want to express it in just one sentence. For example:
John grew up with a brother who worked in construction and was John's only healthy sibling, and another brother who worked in government.
"who worked in construction" is restrictive clause. "John's only health sibling" is non-restrictive.
Another way to rewrite it is:
John grew up with a brother, John's only healthy sibling, who worked in construction, and another brother who worked in government.
Both of these ways to express the idea are clumsy. Any better way?