Eric Jorgensen wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:56:21 -0700
> "D.Currie" > wrote:
>
>
>>I'll second that notion. Just because it's not toxic doesn't mean I want
>>to eat it in quantity. Or actually, at all. That's the type of thing I'd
>>pick off and set aside.
>
>
>
> If you have any amalgam fillings, you have far more to fear from having
> them in your mouth than gold, especially the amount of gold that ends up on
> a cake.
>
> Which is to say, basically nothing to fear. the gold is non-reactive -
> your amalgam fillings will react with aluminum.

Edible gold may not actually be chemically gold, just like gold paint
usually isn't chemically gold. Whether it's reactive or digestible is
not easy to tell without knowing more about what it is.

I see that the gold leaf mentioned in the OP is 23 carat, with the
remaining carat being silver. They make a point of not using copper.

Indian sweets sometimes use gold leaf and silver leaf, which I thought
were actual metal, though maybe they've been replaced by something
cheaper now. So an Indian grocery might be a good place to try for
smaller pieces.