Glad CR is doing the testing. They're not the first to call out plant protein as being particularly bad here - clean labels found a nearly 3x increase in being over the lead limit in plant based products
https://cleanlabelproject.org/protein-study-2-0/ - and stuff labeled as "organic" was particularly bad. Also matched chocolate being particularly bad.
Rest of the article is weird and kind of anti-protein. Mentions one meta-analysis but not all of the other meta-analysis with larger data sets, longer average study times, etc. that show basically the opposite. Pulls out the 25-30g per meal number that is explicit to being able to utilize protein for anabolic purposes, but it's not like your body stops being able to use protein after that for energy purposes, and research has shown that the amount you can use per meal is dependent on a variety of factors and is more like .4g to .6g per kg per meal. Also weird that it's like "health guidelines really only recommend more protein if you're doing resistance training" while not also mentioning that health guidelines also say that literally everyone should be doing resistance training. It's the highest satiety macronutrient and it has to go through two conversion processes that require energy to do before it can be stored as fat.
Also weird that it doesn't mention fiber as being something that Americans need a fuckton more of, either. If I was them my takeaway message would be "Be careful about protein supplements, try to get as much as you can from whole foods, eat more if you lift weights (and you should lift weights), also eat more fiber. A lot more fiber."