Objective The National Food Safety Standard for Animal Derived Aquatic Products (GB 10136-2015) was evaluated to provide reference for the revision of the standard. Methods Feedback and implementation effect from enterprises, inspection agencies, industry associations and scientific research institutions were collected and analyzed through questionnaire from January 2018 to October 2020. The quantitative score data of implementation effect of different survey objects were analyzed by statistical description and test; feedback and suggestions were subdivided and coded from the two dimensions of filling in personnel occupation and feedback content, and the constituent indicators was analyzed by statistical description, and the comparison of evaluation results was analyzed by statistical test. Results A total of 220 special follow-up evaluation questionnaires were sent out and 182 questionnaires were recovered, of which 171 were valid. The overall recovery rate was 82.73% (182/220) and the effective response rate was 77.73% (171/220). The results showed that there were significant differences in the recovery rate and the effective response rate among different respondents (χ²=28.359,P＜0.05;χ²=24.112,P＜0.05). Content analysis of feedback:208 opinions and suggestions were collected, of which 77.88%(162/208) were about scientific issue, 11.54%(24/208) were about feasibility and 10.58%(22/208) were about coordination. The feedback from enterprises accounted for 52.40% of all the respondents, followed by 49 (23.56%) from inspection agencies, 37 (17.79%) from supervisors, and 13 (6.25%) from industry associations/scientific research institutions, and the difference was statistically significant (χ²=64.119, P＜0.05). Analysis of implementation effect:from the result of health demand(H=32.302), industrial development(H=28.394), regulatory demand(H=29.070), text structure(H=18.903) and application scope(H=8.382), the differences of scores of different respondents were statistically significant (P＜0.05). The score of enterprises, supervisors and industry associations/scientific research institutions was 3.50-5.00, and the score of inspection agencies was 3.00-4.50. Conclusion The subjects of the survey focused on the scientific aspects of the terms, definitions and indicators setting. The results can be used as a supplement and evidence for the follow-up evaluation of the standard based on the evaluation content and indicators combined with the content of field investigation and expert consultation.