I do not think "intelligible ingredient list" is a good metric, just because a company chooses to put a wholesome* natural* kind of word on there instead of a scientific one has no bearing on if the ingredient is good or not.
*marketing terms with no agreed upon, let alone enforceable, definition
There are sites like ewg.org that'll give you an idea about what's considered safe to ingest or apply topically. Its telling when you have a laundry list of the composition of a shampoo. People then resort to "no poo" fads or spend their money trying to figure out why their skin reacts or hair dries.
I do not think "intelligible ingredient list" is a good metric, just because a company chooses to put a wholesome* natural* kind of word on there instead of a scientific one has no bearing on if the ingredient is good or not.
*marketing terms with no agreed upon, let alone enforceable, definition
There are sites like ewg.org that'll give you an idea about what's considered safe to ingest or apply topically. Its telling when you have a laundry list of the composition of a shampoo. People then resort to "no poo" fads or spend their money trying to figure out why their skin reacts or hair dries.