Personally, I like using index notation for this type of problem; it's a good deal more compact and, once you get used to it, very transparent. Instead of writing out all the components longhand, write \nabla f \times \nabla g = \tilde{\varepsilon}^{ijk} f_{,i} g_{,j} \hat{\mathbf{e}}_{k} , where \tilde{\varepsilon} is the Levi-Civita symbol (not being careful about index placement here, since we're in flat space). Then you have
<br />
\begin{align*}<br />
\nabla \cdot (\nabla f \times \nabla g) &= \tilde{\varepsilon}^{ijk} (f_{,i} g_{,j})_{,k}\\<br />
&= \tilde{\varepsilon}^{ijk} f_{,i,k} g_{,j} + \tilde{\varepsilon}^{ijk} f_{,i} g_{,j,k} \textrm{.}<br />
\end{align*}<br />
Both summands in the last equation vanish. Indeed, let P = \tilde{\varepsilon}^{ijk} f_{,i,k} g_{,j} . Then, since partials commute, we have P = \tilde{\varepsilon}^{ijk} f_{,k,i} g_{,j} ; by a trivial relabeling of dummy indices, this gives P = \tilde{\varepsilon}^{kji} f_{,i,k} g_{,j} = -\tilde{\varepsilon}^{ijk} f_{,i,k} g_{,j} = -P (since \tilde{\varepsilon} is completely antisymmetric), so P = 0. The logic for the other summand is identical.