Fish consumption advisories are important to the protection of human health but are not often widely communicated nor systematically or comprehensively conducted. The objective of this thesis is to explore the strengths and weaknesses of current fish consumption advisory programs in the US and Canada, providing a comparison between the two countries. The US and Canada were chosen because the two countries are relatively similar in socio-economic makeup as well as in their state vs. federal regulatory setup, allowing for easier comparison. At the sub-federal level, Arizona was chosen to serve as a case study for the US, and Nova Scotia as a case study for Canada. To compare each country, fish consumption advisory programs were broadly described across the 50 US states and 13 Canadian provinces and territories to provide a full understanding of the variation in such programs within each country. In addition to comparison across states and provinces, opportunities and challenges for policy correction to strengthen fish consumption advisory programs will be provided, including suggestions on how the US and Canada can learn from each other in creating better environmental policy. Policy is addressed as a means of improving fish consumption advisory programs because without state or federal requirements to monitor fish tissue for contaminants of concern across the US and Canada, there is no guarantee human health and environmental justice will remain protected in either country. Potential global sources of enhanced environmental policy will be provided as examples of further opportunities for the US and Canada to improve fish consumption advisory program policies.